Allowed

Swapnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2016APL/575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes two First Information Reports registered under sections 326, 324, 323, and 504 IPC. The court held that the dispute between rival cricket groups resulted in a complete settlement, the injuries did not justify Section 326, and the offences were private in nature.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued in Criminal Applications No. 575 of 2016 and No. 576 of 2016 made absolute, quashing First Information Reports No. 14/2015 and No. 7/2015 respectively.

Swapnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2 & 3. APL.575.16 & APL 576.16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 575 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Swapnil Madhukar Kashid & Ors. … Applicants (Org. Accused) Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents (Org. Complainant)

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 576 OF 2016

¶7

Mr. Aaba Suresh Kolekar & Ors. … Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Satish Babasaheb Sakat for the applicants in Cri. Appln. 575/16. Mr. Ganesh Thombre for applicant in Cri. Appln. No. 576/2016. Dr. F. R. Shaikh APP for the Respondent No.1 in both the applications.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21 JUNE, 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 In both the applications we issue Rule. The learned APP

¶12

waives service for the 1^st respondent – State of Maharashtra in both

¶13

the applications. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd

¶14

Respondent in both applications waives service. Forthwith taken up

¶15

Habeeb 1/5

¶16

2 & 3. APL.575.16 & APL 576.16.odt

¶17

for final disposal.

¶18

2 The prayer made in these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr. P. C”) is for quashing two separate First Information Reports registered on the basis of the same incident by two rival groups. Criminal application No. 575 of 2016 is filed for quashing First Information Report No. 14/2015 registered at the instance of the 2^nd Respondent. The offences alleged are under Sections 326, 324 , 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

3 As far as Criminal Application No. 576/2016 is concerned, the prayer is for quashing C. R. No. 7/2015 registered with the same Trombay Police Station for the offences under section 326, 324, 323 and 504 read with section 34 of the IPC. In both the applications, not only the 1^st informant but the persons who were injured in the incident have filed affidavits recording their no objection for quashing the offences on the ground of mutual

¶20

2/5

¶21

Habeeb

¶22

2 & 3. APL.575.16 & APL 576.16.odt

¶23

settlement.

¶24

4 We have perused the statements of the complaints on the basis of both the first information reports were registered. The dispute between two teams playing the game of cricket led to an altercation and eventually a fight between the members of the two groups .

¶25

5 We have perused the injury certificates produced for the perusal of court by the learned APP. The injury certificates do not justify application of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

6 Essentially the offences have been registered on the basis of a private dispute between the two groups playing the game of

¶27

cricket. Now there is a complete settlement of the dispute between the two groups. Considering peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that the offences committed are against the society at large. In our view, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶28

3/5

¶29

Habeeb

¶30

2 & 3. APL.575.16 & APL 576.16.odt

¶31

GYANSINGH V/s. STATE OF PUNJAB1 will squarely apply to the

¶32

facts of the present case.

¶33

7 Accordingly we pass the following order :

¶34

i) Rule issued in Criminal Application No. 575 of 2016 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

¶35

a) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue appropriate order or direction quashing the C.R. No. 14/2015 registered with Trombay Police Station under Section 326, 324, 323, 504, r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein in the interest of justice.

¶36

ii) Rule issue in Criminal Application No. 576 of 2016

¶37

is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) is reads thus ;

¶38

a) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue appropriate order to direction quashing the C.R. No. 7/2015 registered with Trombay Police Station under Section 326, 323, 504, r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein in the interest of justice.

¶39

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶40

Habeeb 4/5

¶41

2 & 3. APL.575.16 & APL 576.16.odt

¶42

8 All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

¶43

order.

¶44

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶45

Habeeb 5/5

Swapnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. 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

Sezal Glass Limited and 4 Ors. Vs S. E. Investments Limited

Pranav Agro Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mac World Industries Sdn. Bdh.

M/S Pranav Agro Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S Shakti International Pvt. Ltd.

Sunil Ramkeshav Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aaba Suresh Kolekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishal S/O Subhash Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.