Three petitions: withdrawal of Criminal PIL 59/2013, and quashing of criminal complaints in WPs 498/2014 and 885/2014 based on post-filing settlements and FIR registrants' consent.
Criminal PIL 59/2013 withdrawn. FIR/quash petitions in WPs 498/2014 and 885/2014 allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRPIL. 59-13, WP. 498-14, 885-2014
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 59 OF 2013
Sayed Viqar Ali Yusuf Ali … Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 498 OF 2014
Abbas A Vankanerwala & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 885 OF 2014
Haji Irfan Mitha … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents ***
Mr. Naveen Chomal with Sandesh More, for the Petitioner in Cri. PIL 59/2013.
Mr. Sandesh More, for Respondent No. 4 in WP. 498/2014 and for Respondent No. 3 in WP 885/2014.
Mr. Niranjan Sahu a/w Rajeev P. Carvalho, Shirin Vastan Mudaliar i/b M/s.Federal & Rashmikant, for the Petitioners in WP. 498/2014, and for Respondent Nos. 3 to 13 in Cri PIL. 59/2013.
Mr. Manohar Ram Singhani a/w Ms. Usha Gadagkar & M/s. Huda Diamondwala & Co. for the Petitioner in WP. 885/2014, for Respondent Nos. 16 & 17 in Cri. PIL 59/2013.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. D. KODE, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 14, 2014
1 / 3
CRPIL. 59-13, WP. 498-14, 885-2014
PC.
2 / 3
CRPIL. 59-13, WP. 498-14, 885-2014
(original Accused No. 12) for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420-, 408, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 506 (II), 34 of the I. P. C. Respondent No. 3 who has filed this FIR has filed an affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed, since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and all his grievances are completely sorted out and satisfied. We have interviewed Respondent No. 3. He states that he has no objection if complaint is quashed in the pending petition, viz. WP. 498/2014, which we have already quashed the FIR on the basis of settlement between the parties. Under these circumstances, therefore, ratio of the judgment in the case of - Narinder Singh & Ors., Appellants Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Respondents [2014 AIR SCW 2065] squarely applies to the facts of the present case, and therefore, there is no impediment in quashing the FIR. Writ Petition No. 885 of 2014 is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a), and is accordingly disposed of.
Vinayak Halemath
3 / 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the withdrawal of Criminal PIL No. 59 of 2013.
Whether to quash the criminal complaint in Writ Petition No. 498 of 2014 based on amicable settlement.
Whether to quash the FIR in Writ Petition No. 885 of 2014 in light of the prior settlement and quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh & Ors., Appellants Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Relied on¶26
[2014 AIR SCW 2065] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sayed Viqar Ali Yusuf Ali
Abbas A Vankanerwala & Ors.
Haji Irfan Mitha
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
V. M. Kanade
P. D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
