Allowed

Mazhar Rehmat Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2015APL/953/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Application and quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC involving Section 326 IPC, as parties settled disputes and consented to quashing. Applicants must pay costs to court library within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed criminal case No.936/PW/2010; Applicants directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to court library within two weeks, failing which application stands dismissed.

Mazhar Rehmat Khan and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

933-APL-953-2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.953 OF 2015

¶4

Mr. Mazhar Rehmat Khan & Ors. Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

..Applicants. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. M.D.Sapkale, advocate for applicants. Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State Mr. S.R.Gaud, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. Date : 16^th September, 2015 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶11

parties.

¶12

2 This application is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.936/PW/2010 pending on the file of 9^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai. The said case arises out of the registration of the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.291 of 2010 with Mahim Police Station at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶13

3 Pending trial, parties have settled their disputes

1/4

Shivgan

933-APL-953-2015.doc

amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent.

¶18

4 Respondent no.2 is the first informant and the respondent no.3 is the injured person, who is also brother of respondent no.2. Both respondent nos.2 and 3 have filed common affidavit dated 9.9.2015. In paragraph 5, they have given joint 'no objection' for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are personally present in this Court. On specific query, they confirm the contents of the said affidavit. They state that they have no objection to quash the proceedings of the subject criminal case.

¶19

5 In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the subject criminal case.

¶20

6 Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to saddle the Applicants with the cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid to the “ Kirtikar Law Librarary ”.

¶21

7 For the quashment to take effect, the Applicants shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated

¶22

Shivgan 2/4

¶23

933-APL-953-2015.doc

¶24

time, application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and the order quashing the proceedings of the criminal case shall be treated as non-est.

¶25

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

[R.G.KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

3/4

Shivgan

933-APL-953-2015.doc

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed judgment/order.

¶32

Shivgan 4/4

Mazhar Rehmat Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazhar Rehmat Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Ratansinh Parvatsinh Devada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Shah @ Raja Chandrashekhar Khara @ Raja Vs Director General of Police and Ors.

Arun Laxman More Vs Addl. Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Ors.

Ashok Krishna Maskar Vs Amrm Exaj Khan and Anr.

Ramchandra J. Vaishnav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.