Noting that proceedings against actor Mamta Kulkarni were “manifestly frivolous and vexatious”, the Bombay High Court has quashed a 2016 drugs case against her. The court also said that continuing the case against her would be nothing short of abuse of process of court.
Quashing the case, the court said it it was of the “clear opinion” that the material collected against Kulkarni do not prima facie constitute any offence against her.
“We are satisfied that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner (Kulkarni) would be nothing short of abuse of process of court,” a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said. The HC had quashed the case against Kulkarni on July 22, however, the detailed order copy was made available on Wednesday.
The judges also said this was a fit case to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR since the proceedings are “manifestly frivolous and vexatious”.
Kulkarni had approached the HC sweking quashing of the FIR lodged against her in 2016 by the Thane police under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). She claimed that she was implicated in the case as she was acquainted with one of the accused, Vicky Goswami.
In April 2016, the police arrested two persons for alleged possession of one kilogram of Ephedrine, a narcotic substance. After a preliminary probe, a case was registered against ten more persons including Kulkarni
As per the prosecution, Kulkarni and other accused, including Goswami, held a meeting in January 2016 in a hotel in Kenya for the sale and purchase of narcotic substances.
After going through the witness statements and other evidence in the chargesheet, the HC noted that the alleged conspiracy meeting had taken place in the dining hall of the hotel in Kenya and that Kulkarni was sitting on a sofa next to the dining table. The material submitted in the chargesheet was not sufficient to sustain the charge levelled against Kulkarni under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the court added.
“Mere presence of the petitioner (Kulkarni) in one of the meetings, even by accepting the material as what is reflected in the chargesheet, would definitely not be sufficient for sustaining conviction under the provisions invoked in the chargesheet,” the judges said while quashing the FIR.
