Manifestly Frivolous & Vexatious: Bombay HC Quashes NDPS Case Against Bollywood Actress Mamta Kulkarni
|The Bombay High Court quashed an NDPS case against the Bollywood actress Mamta Kulkarni in drugs case, saying that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous and vexatious.
The actress filed a criminal writ petition being accused in connection with the offence under Sections 8(c), 9(a), 22, 23, 24, 25(a), 27(a), 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said, “On the basis of the material in the charge-sheet, we are of the clear opinion that the material collected even on being accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the Petitioner. Therefore, in wake of contingency specified in Bhajanlal (supra) in clause (1), we are satisfied that continuation of the prosecution against the Petitioner would be nothing short of abuse of process of Court and despite filing of charge-sheet, we do not deem it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to seek discharge, but on being satisfied that this is a fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers, since the proceedings are manifestly frivolous and vexatious.”
Advocates V.M. Thorat and M.V. Thorat appeared for the petitioner while APP Ashvini Takalkar appeared for the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was from the entertainment industry and claimed to have worked as an actress in 50 Bollywood films and also claimed to be part of various commercials. At the outset, she categorically admitted that she was acquainted with Vicky Goswami, one of the co-accused in the NDPS case. A complaint was filed by a Constable working with NDPS Department alleging that in 2016, a secret information received was passed on to him regarding sale and purchase of Ephedrine, a controlled substance and the vehicle, carrying Ephedrine powder on a particular route and the same was likely to be sold in the city of Thane.
As far as involvement of the petitioner was concerned, the prosecution alleged that the accused persons and co-accused with whom the petitioner was acquainted and other two associates had a meeting in a hotel in the month of January, 2016 and as per the prosecution, conspiracy was hatched by the aforesaid accused, in pursuance of which the Ephedrine powder which was lying in Avon Life Science Company at Solapur, would be transported to Kenya for the purpose of manufacturing Methamphetamine out of the Ephedrine powder, to be sold throughout the world by the accused Vicky Goswami and Dr. Abdulla, for their personal benefit.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “On perusal of the entire material contained in the charge-sheet, we are of the view that this material is not sufficient to sustain a charge against her under the NDPS Act and specifically under Section 8(c) as well as 9(a). In addition, the material collected and presented in the charge-sheet is also insufficient for framing of charge under Section 27A, which prescribe punishment for financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders.”
The Court further observed that mere presence of the petitioner in one of the meetings, even by accepting the material as what is reflected in the charge-sheet would definitely not be sufficient for sustaining conviction under the provisions which are invoked in the charge-sheet.
“… in absence of any material establishing the charge under NDPS Act and even accepting the material in the charge-sheet in its entirety, at the most her presence has been established in the meeting. In the charge-sheet there is no material to demonstrate that the discussion that took place in the meeting about transfer/purchase of shares in her name and making Director of the Company, was ever given effect to”, it noted.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR against the accused.
Cause Title- Mamta Mukund Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:31007-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V.M. Thorat, M.V. Thorat, and Amar Bodke.
Respondent: APP Ashvini Takalkar