Allowed

Nasir Khan and Ors. v. Feroz Mapkhan Shah and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2012APL/485/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to make the regular rule absolute in two cross applications. The court quashed the registered offences due to a settlement between the parties arising from a dispute over a religious function.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both Criminal Applications No. 485 and 471 of 2012.

Nasir Khan and Ors. Vs Feroz Mapkhan Shah and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

appln485-471

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.485 OF 2012

¶5

Mr.Nasir Khan & Ors....Applicants
vs.
Mr.Feroz Mapkhan Shah & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.471 OF 2012
Mr.Feroz Mapkhan & Ors....Applicants
vs.
Mr.Nasir Khan Mushtaq Khan & Anr....Respondents

¶6

Ms Prabha Badadare i/b Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar for
the applicants in Application no.485/2012 and for
the respondent no.1 in application no.471/2012
Mr.Rahul R. Singh for the applicants in application
no.471/2012 and for respondent no.1 in application
no.485/2012

¶7

Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P for State

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 S.S.SHINDE, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 6,2012

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

.Not on board. Taken on board. Rule.

¶11

1The learned counsel representing the first
respondent in these two applications waive service.
Learned A.P.P waives service for second respondent.

¶12

2Criminal application no.485/2012 has been filed
for quashing the registration of offences punishable
under sections 143,144,145,148,149,323, 324, 506

¶13

appln485-471

¶14

¶15

(II) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as IPC) and Criminal application no.471/2012 is
filed praying for quashing the offences, registered
at the instance of the first respondent therein,
punishable under sections 323, 324, 325, 506(II),
143, 144, 145, 148, 149 of the IPC. The learned
counsel for the applicants and the first respondent
in these applications state that subsequently the
parties have arrived at settlement. The settlement
has been incorporated in the consent terms. The
consent terms signed on 22nd March 2012 are annexed
to both the applications in which agreement is
recorded that the parties have agreed to quash the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the offences
registered.

¶16

3We have perused the complaints. Both the
reports relate to the same incident of 23rd December
2009. Perusal of the F.I.Rs show that there was a
dispute over a religious function between the two
groups. Thus, the complaints on the basis of which
offences are filed are in the nature of cross
complaints. In the consent terms, it is set out
that the parties agree that the cases were filed as
a result of a misunderstanding. The settlement was
of all proceedings including the proceedings before
the Charity Commissioner.

¶17

4From the consent terms, it does appear that
there is settlement between the two groups. It is
apparent that due to dispute, cross complaints have
been registered. Looking to the facts of the case,

¶18

3 appln485-471

¶19

we are of the view that sections 324 and 325 may not
have any application. In view of the consent terms
and peculiar nature of the case, power under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 will
have to be exercised.

¶20

5 Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶21

.Rule in both applications is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a).

¶22

(S.S.SHINDE,J.)

Nasir Khan and Ors. v. Feroz Mapkhan Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir Khan and Ors. v. Feroz Mapkhan Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananta Nathu Dahibhate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Singh Harnamsingh Sethi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Dnyandeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satya Priya Rakesh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganpat Bhikaji Bamne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Feroz Mapkhan and Ors. Vs Nasir Khan Mushtaq Khan and Anr.