Allowed

Firozkhan Hakimkhan Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2012APPLN/1378/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal application under Section 482 CrPC was moved to quash a Sessions Case where the accused and complainant had arrived at a compromise before framing of charges. The Court allowed the application relying on precedents regarding personal nature disputes.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Case no. 228 of 2010 pending before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar stands quashed and set aside.

Firozkhan Hakimkhan Pathan and Ors. Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No. 1378 of 2012

¶4

Firozkhan S/o Hakimkhan Pathan
and others.

¶5

Applicants

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and another.

¶8

RespondentS

¶9

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, APP for the respondent no.1 / State
Mr. N.B. Patekar, advocate for the respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 10th April, 2012

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.This application is moved under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of charge sheet.
Sessions Case no. 228 of 2010 is pending before the
Sessions Court at Ahmednagar. The offence alleged against
the applicants/accused are punishable under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 307, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and also
under Section 4 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act and certain
provisions of Bombay Police Act.

¶13

2.The respondent no.2 is the complainant on whose
statement offence was registered against the applicants.
The incident took place on 17th September, 2009 when the

¶14

¶15

applicants allegedly assaulted the complainant and caused
grievous injuries on his person. They even allegedly took
away Rs. 30,000/-, which he had. During pendency of the
Sessions Case, which is still not tried, and even prior
to framing of the charge, the applicants and the
respondent no.2-complainant arrived at a compromise, and
on last occasion, they filed compromise pursis jointly
signed by them.

¶16

3.The respondent no.2 now is not interested in
continuing prosecution. The question is whether the
provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
could be invoked for quashing of proceedings in this
peculiar situation. The answer is in affirmative. Similar
situation arose before various Courts including the
Supreme Court and our Court. In case of "Madan Mohan
Abbot V/s State of Punjab" reported in "AIR 2008 S.C.
1969", it was held "In disputes where the question
involved is of purely personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in
criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a
luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they
are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be
utilized in deciding more meaningful litigation." In view
of this, I am inclined to exercise discretion and allow
the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

¶17

¶18

4.The application is allowed. Sessions Case no. 228 of
2010 pending before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar stands
quashed and set aside.

¶19

 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. )

¶20

SGA/

Firozkhan Hakimkhan Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firozkhan Hakimkhan Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appasaheb Babanrao Yewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Narayan Sopan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

B Radhakrishnan and Anr. Vs M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni Vs Pruthviraj Vishvas Chavan and Anr.

Parmeshwar Balaji Murkute and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.