Allowed

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banegar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2014APL/561/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed two connected criminal applications seeking quashing of cross-filed complaints under various IPC offences. The Court valued the amicable settlement and issues raised by the *Narinder Singh* judgment, holding that no purpose would be served in keeping complaints pending. Consequently, both applications were allowed and disposed of, wi

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Applications allowed and disposed of; Applicants directed to pay Rs. 1000 costs each to Tata Cancer Research Society.

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banegar and Ors. Vs the State… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

APL/561/2014 WITH APL/500/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.561 OF 2014

¶5

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banega & Others

¶6

….. Applicants.

¶7

V/s

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

…... Respondents.

¶10

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2014

¶11

Sajid Hisamuddin Birwadkar & Ors.

¶12

….. Applicants.

¶13

V/s

¶14

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶15

…... Respondents.

¶16

Mr. R.V. Gupta i/b Ms. Malika Ingale for the Applicants and for Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.500 of 2014.

¶17

Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State in both the above Applications.

¶18

Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Kartik Garg in Criminal Application No.500 of 2014 for the Applicants and for Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.561 of 2014.

¶19

CORAM: V. M. KANADE & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶20

DATE: 9^th October, 2014

¶21

2/3

¶22

APL/561/2014 WITH APL/500/2014

¶23

P.C.:-

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants in Criminal Application No.561 of 2014 and the learned Counsel for the Applicants in Criminal Application No.500 of 2014. Applicants in both these Applications are seeking quashing of criminal complaints filed by Respondent No.2. The complaints and cross complaints have been filed against each other in both these cases and it is submitted that both the parties have now amicably settled the dispute.

¶25

In Criminal Application No.561 of 2014, C.R. No.I-134 of 2013 was registered by the Manor Police Station against the Applicants for the offences punishable under sections 354, 326, 324, 504, 506, 427 and 34 of the IPC. In Criminal Application No.500 of 2014, C.R. No.I-149 of 2013 was registered by the Manor Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC.

¶26

Both the parties are now present before the Court and they have stated in the affidavit filed by the respective complainants that the senior members of their community have resolved the dispute and, accordingly, both the parties have stated in their affidavit that they have no objection if the complaints are quashed.

¶27

The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted

¶28

3/3

¶29

APL/561/2014 WITH APL/500/2014

¶30

that the Complainant in C.R. No.I-134 was interviewed by her and she was not in a position to state the facts. It is submitted that it is obvious that false complaint was filed by her at the instance of her relatives as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by other complainant.

¶31

After having heard both the parties at length and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, we are of the view that since parties have amicably settled the dispute and since both the parties do not wish to pursue their respective complaints, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another¹ , no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping both the complaints pending. However, each of the Applicants in both these Applications will have to pay costs which is quantified at Rs 1000/- and the said costs shall have to be paid to the Tata Cancer Research Society within a period of four weeks.

¶32

Both these Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and disposed of.

¶33

Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

¶34

(P.D. KODE, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶35

1 2014 AIR SCW 2065

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banegar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banegar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramalu Agmaiyya Margam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Kanji Purohit and Ors. Vs Jayantilal Ratansingh Gada and Anr.

Sarfaraj @ Farukh a. Hamid Shaikh Vs the Divisionla Commissioner of Pune Division and Anr.

Ram Sagar Prasad Sinha and Anr. Vs CBI Acb and Anr.

Sajid Hisamuddin Birwadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shyamprasad Narsinha Sardesai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.