Bharat Arjandas Tolani v. The State Of Maharashtra
Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date:
2025.08.08 11:41:46 +0530 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3855 OF 2025 Bharat Arjandas Tolani ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
....Respondents ---- Mr. Suhas Kharat for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, Addl. PP for the Respondent - State. PI Chandrakant Kamble, Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai and API Anand Shahane, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai present. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2025 P.C. :- 1.
This is a classic case of the Petitioner seeking discretionary relief from this Court, by indulging in suppression of antecedents and material facts.
2.
When we heard this matter on 22nd July 2025, we passed the following order :
1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has tendered a copy of the Petition to the learned APP in the Court today.
2. The learned APP would also apprise the Court as to whether any crimes or offences have been registered against the Petitioner.
3. Stand over to 5th August, 2025, in the 'Supplementary Board'.
3.
Apprehending that the learned Addl. PP Mr. KondeDeshmukh would place before us the complete details of the cases registered against the Petitioner, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has, on his own, tendered a list of ten criminal cases registered against him. The same is taken on record and marked as ' X ' for identification. The said chart (2 pages) signed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner on instructions and tendered to the Court, indicates as under :
Sr.
No.
Case No.
Under Section Court Details Stage Next date SCC 803/2015 385 of I.P.C.
2nd Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Ulhasnagar Evidenc e part heard 20/8/202 RCC 154/2019 354 of I.P.C.
3rd Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Bhiwandi Hearing 2/9/2025 5th District Judge 6 and Addl.
Sessions Judge at Kalyan Spl.
Case 85/2020 354 of I.P.C. & 8, 12 of POSCO ACT Hearing 8/8/2025
SCC 4025/2022 258 of C.R.P.C.
2nd Jt. CJJD & JMFC Thane Dispose d 6/5/2022 RCC 1286/2023 354 of I.P.C.
4th Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Thane Awaitin g Summo ns 7/8/2025 6th Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Belapur SCC 2232/2021 500 of I.P.C. & 3 of Police (Incitemen t to Disaffectio n Act) Case Dispose d 19/1/202 RCC 1058/2020 354, 504 of I.P.C.
Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Ulhasnagar Dispose d 2/1/2021 SCC 575/2001 37(1), 135 of Bombay Police Act Ld. JMFC at Ulhasnagar Dispose d 30/6/200 SCC 417/2015 500 of I.P.C.
2nd Jt. CJJD & JMFC at Ulhasnagar Dispose d 10/2/202 CR. Revision 212/2023 397 of C.R.P.C.
2nd Ad Hoc.
District Judge 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur Dispose d 31/5/202 4.
The Petitioner claims to be the Chief Editor of a weekly publication, namely "Mera Town". He further claims to be
an RTI activist and he has exposed various illegal businesses and activities in the regions of Ulhasnagar, Kalyan, Bhiwandi, and Mumbai.
5.
In the list of cases that are reproduced above, five cases have been disposed off, in default, since the Complainant did not appear before the Court. In one matter, there is an acquittal. The first matter in the list pertains to an allegation of extortion by the Petitioner. The second matter pertains to outraging the modesty of a woman. The third matter pertains to a crime committed against a minor (POCSO). The fifth case also pertains to outraging the modesty of a woman. In the case at serial no.7, which was also a case of outraging modesty, the Petitioner claims to have been acquitted.
6.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallized the law that a litigant must come to the Court with clean hands when seeking discretionary relief or any relief for which entitlement must be established. In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. v/s. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors.1 and Kishore Samrite 2013 (11) SCC 531
v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a person comes to the Court with tainted hands, the Court may refuse relief and deal firmly with such a litigant. It was further observed in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav (Supra) that the Petitioner is obliged to disclose all relevant facts and must not withhold or filter information from the Court. 7.
In view of the above, this is a fit case to be dismissed with costs.
8.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioner pleaded, on instructions, that costs may not be imposed. In view of his request, we are, though reluctantly, not imposing any costs. 9.
In view of the above, this Petition is dismissed. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 2013 (2) SCC 398