Bombay High Court quashes ‘frivolous, vexatious’ FIR against Mamta Kulkarni in drugs case

Mamta Kulkarni drugs case: Bombay High Court quashes 2016 case against Mamta Kulkarni; passes order stating that the material collected against the actor does not prima facie constitute any offence against her

The Bombay High Court quashed a 2016 drugs case against former actor Mamta Kulkarni and passed an order stating that the material collected against the actor does not prima facie constitute any offence against her.

In the order made available on Wednesday (August 7, 2024) and passed by a division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande on July 22, 2024, the bench said, “We are of clear opinion that the petitioner (Ms. Kulkarni) had a fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers, since the proceedings are manifestly frivolous and vexatious. We are satisfied that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would be nothing short of abuse of process of court.”

On April 12, 2016, the Thane Police arrested two persons for allegedly possessing 2 kg of ephedrine, a narcotic substance. Following an investigation, the police registered a case under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and arrested 10 people. Seven others in the case were listed as wanted, including Ms. Kulkarni. The police chargesheet said the former actor participated in meetings with one of the co-accused, Vicky Goswami, at a hotel in Kenya where the sale and purchase of narcotic substances happened. To corroborate the claims, police had recorded statements of another co-accused who claimed to be present in the meeting.

In her petition, Ms. Kulkarni said she was implicated in the case as she was acquainted with the co-accused, Mr. Goswami. Appearing for Ms. Kulkarni, advocates V.M. Thorat and Madhav Thorat, appealed for the cancellation of the charges as there was no material to justify the impleadment of the petitioner as an accused in the case. “By no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be held liable for the act committed by the co-accused in the crime,” the advocates contended. 

“On perusal of the entire material contained in the chargesheet, 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) (consumption of drugs) as well as 9(a) (Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate). Mere presence of the petitioner 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 which are invoked in the chargesheet,” the bench said.