Allowed

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Sept 2015WP/1052/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a personal dispute between two lawyers under Section 354D IPC. The court held that quashing serves the interests of justice but imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 or donation instead.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of CC No.344/PS/2014 and FIR bearing C.R. No.209 of 2013 quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- or donation of books worth Rs.5000/- to Kirtikar Law Library within

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sr.No. 9

¶2

WP 1052.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2015

¶4

Mr. Amit Shahsi Shastri Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. Kumari Jennifer Kirankumar Micheal

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Velkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State. Mr. Anil D'Souza, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶9

R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2015.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

¶12

The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside the proceedings of C.C. No.344/PS/2014 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 16^th Court at Ballard Pier. The said case arises out of registration of FIR bearing C.R. No.209 of 2013 with M.R.A. Police Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offence punishable under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

WP 1052.15

Sr.No. 9

Pending trial, the parties settled their dispute amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent. The petitioner is personally present before the Court. He submitted that he did not intend to cause any harm or inconvenience to respondent No.2. He has also assured that the acts as alleged in the FIR would not be repeated. He has given an undertaking that he will not communicate in any mode with respondent No.2. The petitioner tenders an unconditional apology to respondent No.2 for his behaviour.

¶17

Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. In the light of the above and especially in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, she submitted that she has no objection, if the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set-aside.

¶18

The petitioner and respondent No.2, both are lawyers practicing in the Court. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the quashing of the proceedings of the subject criminal case would be in the interests of both the parties in order to maintain cordial relationship. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

Sr.No. 9

WP 1052.15

Accordingly, the proceeding of C.C. No.344/PS/2014 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 16^th Court at Ballard Pier so also the FIR bearing C.R. No.209 of 2013 are quashed and set-aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-, or in the alternative, donating books worth Rs.5000/- to the “Kirtikar Law Library” by the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce the receipt in respect of the costs/donation thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the criminal writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶23

Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

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

¶25

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akbar Hussain Shafi Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Madhukar Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.