Allowed

Maheshsingh N. Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2014WP/3332/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay allowed Writ Petition to quash a criminal complaint based on an FIR registering offences under IPC Sections 304A and 338 for injuries sustained in an accident. The Court relied on the amicable settlement, undertakings provided by the petitioner, and deposit of fixed amounts.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; complaint quashed; petitioner directed to open Fixed Deposits.

Maheshsingh N. Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

suresh

¶2

915-WP-3332.2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
WRIT PETITION NO.3332 OF 2014

¶4

Maheshsingh N. Thakur.... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
& Others.... Respondents

¶5

S/Shri Murtuza Najmi i/b Ashish Mehta
for the Petitioner.
Shri K.V. Saste, APP, for the State.
Shri Prakash Mishra for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.

¶6

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

¶7

DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.Heard learned counsel appearing on

¶10

behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

2.This petition is filed for quashing of
a criminal complaint which has been registered
with the M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

suresh 915-WP-3332.2014

¶14

vide FIR No.83 of 2007 for offences punishable
under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC. Charge-
sheet now has been filed and the matter is
pending before the learned Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard
Pier, Mumbai. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that parties
have now amicably settled the dispute and
respondent No.2 has no objection if the
complaint is quashed.

¶15

3.Brief facts of the prosecution's case
is that, the petitioner and the husband of
respondent No.2 were carrying on business
jointly of installing VSAT antenna. Both were
real brothers and were living in a joint family
along with their wives and children. On the
fateful day, the brother of the petitioner and
husband of respondent No.2 had gone on the
terrace of a building for installing VSAT

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

suresh 915-WP-3332.2014

¶18

antenna and while so doing, he lost his balance

¶19

and fell down and succumbed to the injuries.
One other worker, respondent No.3 herein, who
was also working along with the petitioner and
his brother tried to save him. However, he too
fell down and sustained certain injuries.
However, he has survived. In the complaint it
was alleged by respondent No.2 that since
safety equipments were not given by the
petitioner to her husband, an offence under
Section 304A of the IPC was committed by him.

¶20

4.We have perused the affidavits in
reply filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Both
have stated that they have no objection if the
complaint is quashed. In the affidavit filed by
respondent No.2, she has stated that the
petitioner is looking after her children and
she is staying with her children in the same
house and they are being properly looked after

¶21

Page 3 of 6

¶22

suresh 915-WP-3332.2014

¶23

by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
petitioner, after having taken instructions
from the petitioner, has given an undertaking

¶24

to this Court that the petitioner shall
continue to look after respondent No.2 and her
children and pay for their education, medical
and all other expenses. Upon a suggestion being
made by us that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each
should be deposited by the petitioner in Fixed
Deposit in any nationalised Bank in the joint
name of respondent No.2 and 2(a) and respondent
No.2 and 2(b), the said suggestion has been
accepted and the petitioner undertakes to open
two Fixed Deposit Accounts within a period of

¶25

eight to twelve weeks from today. The
undertaking given by the petitioner is
accepted.

¶26

5.The petitioner is directed to open two
Fixed Deposit accounts of Rs.5,00,000/- each,

¶27

Page 4 of 6

¶28

suresh 915-WP-3332.2014

¶29

one in the joint name of respondent No.2 and

¶30

2(a) and the other in the joint name of
respondent No.2 and 2(b) in any nationalised
Bank within a period of eight to twelve weeks
from today. The interest which may accrue on
the said amount shall be used by the petitioner
for the purpose of looking after the education
of respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(b) over and above
the other expenses which are incurred. Upon
both the minors attaining the age of majority,
the amounts in both the Fixed Deposits shall be
given to respondent No.2.

¶31

6.The Apex Court has in the case of Gian

¶32

Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in
2012 AIR SCW 5333and recently in the case of
Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab &
another, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2065 has held
that if both the parties amicably agree to
settle a dispute which is of a personal nature,

¶33

Page 5 of 6

¶34

suresh 915-WP-3332.2014

¶35

then this Court while exercising its inherent

¶36

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
and Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶37

should not hesitate in quashing such a
complaint. We have interviewed respondent No.2

¶38

and she has stated that she has no objection if
the complaint is quashed. We are satisfied that
quashing of the complaint, therefore, is in the
best interest of the complainant and her
children. Even otherwise, perusal of the
complaint and the averments made therein reveal
that even if the averments are accepted at
their face value, they will not amount to an
offence punishable under Section 304A or
Section 338 of the IPC since obviously it was
an accident and the question of negligence,
therefore, in such cases does not arise. The
petition is accordingly allowed in terms of

¶39

prayer clause (b) and is disposed of.

¶40

Page 6 of 6

Maheshsingh N. Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshsingh N. Thakur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Dharampal Alias Kamal Aasosingh Sonegara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Ramnaresh Saraf (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Rajesh Baijnath Chaurasia Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board and 5 Ors.