Allowed

Bhavesh Girish Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016APL/656/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 324, 323 IPC and related sections. The High Court found the dispute arose from a business transaction and injuries were simple, not against society at large. Relying on Gian Singh case, the Court quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; FIR No.T 220/2016 lodged with TULINJ Police Station PALGHAR is quashed.

Bhavesh Girish Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

apl-656.16.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.656 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Bhavesh Girish Patel and Ors. … Applicants

¶5

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Satyam R. Dubey for the Applicants. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Raju M. Pankar for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE : 20^th OCTOBER, 2016

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first Respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶11

2 Prayer in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is for quashing the First Information Report filed at the instance of the second Respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 324, 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is a reply filed by the second Respondent in which it is

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

apl-656.16.odt

¶14

stated that the Applicants and the second Respondent are in the same business of real estate of sale of flats, shops, etc. They are residing in the same locality at Nalasopara (East). Therefore, they have decided to settle the dispute. Accordingly, he has no objection for quashing the FIR.

¶15

3 We have perused the allegations made in the statement of the second Respondent. The dispute appears to be over a business transaction. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the victims appear to be simple injuries as seen from the medical certificate produced on the last date. The offence alleged cannot be said to be one against the society at large. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1 , this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Parties have paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. Hence, we pass the following order :-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

¶18

(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction for quashing the first information report No.T 220/2016 lodged with TULINJ Police Station PALGHAR under section

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

2 of 3

apl-656.16.odt

324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 114 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 AS AMENDED with TULINJ Police Station PALGHAR, against the applicants herein in the interest of justice.”

¶23

(ii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

order.

(A.A. SAYED, J )

(A.S. OKA, J )

3 of 3

Bhavesh Girish Patel and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavesh Girish Patel 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

Contract Advertising India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited and 2 Ors.

Polygenta Technologies Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri.Rajesh Chhaganlal Patwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Devji Bhaya Jethwa and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Vikram Mahadeo Pawar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Throug Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Abdul Gaffar Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs Superintendent Public Trust Registration Office Nasik and Anr.