Allowed

Tanvir Alam and Ors. v. Senior Insepctor of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2016APL/235/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay quashed FIRs in two criminal applications arising from the same incident involving an altercation in a restaurant. Finding the offences not serious against society at large and noting a complete settlement between parties, the court exercised its powers under section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute to quash FIR No.247/2015 in Cr.App.376 and FIR No.248/2015 in Cr.App.235, along with all proceedings initiated under the relevant IPC sections.

Tanvir Alam and Ors. Vs Senior Insepctor of Police and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

apl376

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.376 OF 2016 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2016

¶5

Kishore Ramesh Shetty ...Applicant
vs.
Senior Inspector of Police through
Bangur Nagar Police Station & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2016

¶7

Tanvir Alam & Ors....Applicants
vs.

¶8

Senior Inspector of Police through
Bangur Nagar Police Station & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Akshay Ajit Shah for the applicant in
Cri.Appln.376/2016 and for respondent No.3 in
Cri.Appln.No.235/2016

¶10

Ms Aparna Wagle i/b Waquar Ahmad for the applicant
in Cri.Appln.No.235/2016 and for the respondent No.3
in Cri.Appln.No.376 of 2016

¶11

Ms M.H.Mhatre, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
both the applications.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : JUNE 24, 2016

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1Rule. In criminal application No.376 of 2016,
the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 14
waives services. The learned APP waives service for
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. In criminal application
No.235/2016, learned APP waives service for

¶16

2 apl376

¶17

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for
the respondent No.3 waives service. Forthwith taken
up for final disposal.

¶18

2The criminal application No.376 of 2016 has
been filed for quashing FIR registered on 21st July
2015 at the instance of the respondent No.4 in
relation to the incident of 21stJuly 2015.
According to the case of the respondent No.4 in
Criminal application No.376 of 2016, he along with
others were sitting in a Restaurant situated at
Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. From the FIR it
appears that there was altercation between the
respondent No.4 and the Waiters in the hotel. The
allegation is that the altercation led to incident
of alleged assault by the Waiters in the hotel and
the other staff of the hotel.

¶19

3Criminal Application No.235 of 2016 is filed
for quashing the first information report in
relation to the same incident registered at the
instance of the respondent no.3 who is one of the
applicants in the Criminal Application No.376 of
2016. He is the owner of the Bar and Restaurant in
which the alleged incident took place. His
allegation is that the Applicants in the Criminal
Application No.235 of 2016 indulged in the offence
of rioting.

¶20

4The offences subject matter of the complaint in
Criminal Application No.376 of 2016 are under
sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 427, 506 (2) and 504 of

¶21

3 apl376

¶22

the Indian Penal Code. The offences in the FIR
subject matter of challenge in the Criminal
Application Nos.235 of 2016 are under sections 143,
144, 147, 149, 427, 506 (2) and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code. In both the matters, the first
informant and the alleged victims of the offences
have filed affidavits. They have recorded their
respective consent for quashing the FIR as there is
a complete settlement between the parties. We are
informed that the parties are present before this
Court.

¶23

5Perusal of both the FIRs shows that the both
relate to the same incident. There are two versions
of the same incident. It appears that the FIRs are
the result of a quarrel within the four corners of
the restaurant. It cannot be said that the alleged
offences are against the society at large or that
they are of serious nature as specified in paragraph
61 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another1. In
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
said decision, considering the settlement, this is a
fit case for exercising the power under section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

¶24

6 Hence, we pass the following order:

¶25

7 In criminal application No.376 of 2016 Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶26

1 (2012) 10 SCC page 303

¶27

apl376

¶28

¶29

“(b)To quash and set aside the FIR No.247 of
2015 being Exhibit “A” herein above and all
the proceedings initiated under sections 143,
144, 147,148,149,324,427,506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code against the Applicant after
examiningtherecords,papersand
proceedings, legality and validity.”

¶30

8In criminal application No.235 of 2016, Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which
reads thus:

¶31

“(b)To quash and set aside the FIR No.248 of
2015 being Exhibit A hereinabove and all the
proceedings initiated under sections 143,
144, 147, 149, 427, 506(2) and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code read with section 85 of the
Prohibition Act and subsequently all the
proceedings and notices issued by the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively against
these Applicants after examining the records,
papers and proceedings, legality and
validity.”

¶32

9All concerned to act upon an authenticated
copy of this order.

Tanvir Alam and Ors. v. Senior Insepctor of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvir Alam and Ors. v. Senior Insepctor of Police 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

M/S Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. (CIN-L30007MH1990PLC055256) Vs M/S. Mukesh Textile Mills Ltd.

M/S Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. Vs M/S Deligent Investment Ltd.

M/S Omnitech Infosolutions Ltd. (CIN-L30007MH1990PLC055256) Vs M/S Streamline Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Ltd. Vs Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd.

Vidyut C.Shah and 12 Ors. Vs M/S. Standard Materials Agencies and 9 Ors.

Popatlal Deepchand Odhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.