Dismissed

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Aug 2014APL/1056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet. The Court held that it is not its function to appreciate evidence to decide if a case is made out and found sufficient material already existed to support the charges. Religious acquaintance of one witness that the applicant had directed his son to handle the matter was deemed sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of FIR No. I-131/12 and charge-sheet is dismissed.

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

908-apl-1056-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2013

¶4

WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 695 OF 2013
IN

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2013

¶7

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶8

Applicant in-person (Present).

¶9

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
Mr. Subhas Jha i/b. Law Global, for the
Complainant.

¶10

DATE :AUGUST 07, 2014

¶11

P.C:

¶12

Heard the applicant who is appearing in

¶13

person and the learned APP appearing for the
State.

¶14

2.By this application, filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

1/4

Vishal Parekar

908-apl-1056-2013

applicant is seeking an appropriate order for
quashing the F.I.R. No. I-131/12 dated 4th August,
2012 registered at Bhiwandi-Nizampura police
station, District Thane and also to quash the
investigation and charge-sheet which has been
filed thereafter by the police.

¶19

3.Firstly, it is submitted that in the

¶20

initial three statements which were recorded by
the police, no reference was made to the present
applicant and only in the fourth statement, his

¶21

reference was made. It is submitted that
therefore the said statement can not be treated
as an F.I.R. and therefore the applicant cannot

¶22

be implicated on the basis of the said statement.
Secondly, it is submitted that the only material
on record is the statement of one witness who
claims that he had heard the son of the applicant
saying that his father i.e. applicant would take
care of the entire thing. It is submitted that

2/4

Vishal Parekar

908-apl-1056-2013

therefore, there is no material on record and the
charge-sheet is liable to be quashed and set
aside.

¶27

4.It is not possible to accept the

¶28

submissions made by the applicant in person. It
is quite well settled position in law that this

¶29

Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction

¶30

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶31

is not expected to appreciate the material on

¶32

record to arrive at a conclusion whether a case

¶33

is made out for prosecution of the applicant or

¶34

not. There is sufficient material on record

¶35

which indicate that the applicant was involved in

¶36

the commission of the said offence. The F.I.R.

¶37

has been registered for the offence punishable
under Section 307 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code

¶38

and Section 3 read with 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶39

In our view, therefore, at this stage it will not

¶40

be possible to quash the charge-sheet. It is an

3/4

Vishal Parekar

908-apl-1056-2013

admitted position that the applicant also had
filed an application for discharge and the said
application has been dismissed by the trial Court
and against the said order he has preferred an
application for revocation of MCOC Act. The said
impugned order rejecting the application for
discharge has been challenged by him and is

¶45

pending in this Court. That being the position,
we are not inclined to quash the charge-sheet or
F.I.R. which has been filed. Application is
dismissed.

¶46

4/4

¶47

Vishal Parekar

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Mukhtar Ibrahim Talgharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Sunderlal Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zainab Alim Akhtar Hublikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afzal Ibrahim Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Premkumar Ramlakhan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nelson Kenny Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.