Allowed

Mohammad Irshad S/O Rabbani Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2015WP/3389/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 326, 323, and 504 IPC arising from a personal dispute, as parties had amicably settled the matter. While upholding the quashing in the interests of justice, the Court imposed costs on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings bearing Case No.955/PW/2013 are quashed. Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000 to Tata Memorial Hospital within four weeks.

Mohammad Irshad S/O Rabbani Shaikh Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp3389-15-907

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3389 OF 2015

¶6

Mohammed Irshad s/o. Rabbani Shaikh

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

Mohammed Saddam Hussain s/o. Mohd. Gulam Shaikh

¶11

..Respondents.

¶12

Mr.A.B.Mishra for the petitioner. Mrs.S.V.Sonavane, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Mr.A.R. Shaikh for respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2015

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the criminal proceedings bearing Case No.955/PW/2013 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 60^th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The said criminal case arises out of F.I.R. bearing No.40/13 registered with Trombay police station at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner and accused

¶18

1/3

¶19

No.2 Kamranbanu Rabbani Shaikh for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is reported that accused No.2 Kamranbanu Rabbani Shaikh, mother of the present petitioner, has expired.

¶20

Pending trial, the parties approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject Criminal Case by consent since they have amicably settled their dispute. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 21^st August, 2015. In paragraph 3, he has stated that he has no objection if the said Case No.955/PW/ 2013 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. The complainant is identified by his Advocate. On being questioned, respondent No.2 specifically stated that he has gone through his affidavit and has fully understood the contents thereof and has no objection if the criminal case is quashed. He also stated that he is giving no objection for quashing the said proceedings out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶21

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the offence. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the

¶22

2/3

¶23

wp3389-15-907

¶24

Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab

¶25

[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. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. 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.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/by the petitioner, to be deposited with Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for the use of its philanthropic purposes. The petitioner shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶27

Subject to above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶29

3/3

Mohammad Irshad S/O Rabbani Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irshad S/O Rabbani Shaikh 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

Smt. Rupeshree Tukaram Rahatwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Madanlal Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nidhi Moolbehari Saxena Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Javed Mobin Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Viram Satra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Suketu Jhaveri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.