Panaji, Aug 19 The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against actor Gaurav Bakshi, observing that merely telling a public servant that he would approach vigilance authorities could not amount to criminal intimidation.
In his order of August 18, Justice Amit S Jamsandekar of the HC’s Goa bench set aside the FIR registered at the Panaji police station, the chargesheet and proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Merces.
In the first information report registered on December 12, 2025, Bakshi was accused of abusing a staffer from the office of the ‘mamlatdar’ (taluka-level revenue officer) at Tiswadi, threatening him and creating a disturbance at the office in connection with a land-conversion file.
The prosecution had alleged that Bakshi had threatened the official by saying, among other things, “I will show you” and “I will see that you lose your job by registering vigilance case against you”.
The HC held that even if all the allegations in the complaint were accepted in their entirety, they did not disclose any threat of physical injury, injury to reputation or injury to property. It further observed that there was no allegation that the complainant was put in a state of sudden fear or apprehension of immediate danger to his person, reputation or property.
The court specifically held that the threat to approach vigilance authorities or lodge a complaint could not, by itself, amount to criminal intimidation under Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which was invoked against Bakshi.
“A person informing another that he would take recourse to a lawful remedy cannot be treated as threatening that person with injury within the meaning of Section 351(3) of the BNS,” the court observed.
The High Court also noted that the prosecution relied on allegations that Bakshi had disturbed the peaceful functioning of the office and obstructed the official in discharging his duties. But it observed that merely using rude or abusive words, or an argument between two persons, could not automatically result in criminal liability unless the “statutory ingredients of the particular offence were satisfied”.
On the other charge under Section 132 of the BNS against Bakshi, the court said records contained no allegation of “pushing, touching, catching hold of, manhandling or any other physical act against the complainant”. The allegations essentially concerned an exchange of words, abusive language and the threat to approach vigilance authorities, it noted.
The court also took note of the chronology of events. Bakshi had earlier filed a complaint on February 6, 2025, against the official alleging dereliction of duty and harassment and seeking disciplinary action. Based on the official’s complaint, the FIR was registered against the actor on December 12, 2025.
The high court said the earlier complaint provided “the necessary background” to the prosecution and that the FIR could not be viewed in isolation. It accepted the submissions made on behalf of Bakshi and rejected those advanced by the state.
The court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
