Allowed

Navin Chikaya Pujari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2016APL/857/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR regarding assault and affray arising from a liquor-related altercation between two groups in the same locality. The victim expressed settlement, injuries were not considered heinous, and the court applied precedent allowing quashing in such disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR C.R.No.380 of 2016 registered at Malwani Police Station was quashed and set aside.

Navin Chikaya Pujari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

apl-857.16.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.857 OF 2016

¶4

Navin Chikaya Pujari and Ors. … Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for the Applicants. Ms. M.H. Mhatre APP for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Ayesha M. Pinto i/by Mr. Yashodhan Gavankar for the Respondent No.2.

¶6

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

¶7

DATE : 12^th AUGUST, 2016

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first

¶10

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

¶11

2 By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the Applicants have prayed for quashing First Information Report registered at the instance of the second Respondent at Malwani Police Station in Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 504, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident is of 10^th July, 2016.

¶12

1 of 4

¶13

apl-857.16.odt

¶14

The second Respondent along with others consumed liquor late in the night. Some of them came out to drop their friend Lawrence at his residence. While they were proceeding by a motor cycle they stopped at bus stop near Malwani Church. At that time, one person approached them and demanded lift. When the second Respondent and others denied the lift, he started altercation. At that time, one person came from behind and assaulted the second Respondent by a beer bottle. He has stated that a third person was also involved in the acts of violence. On the last date, we have perused the medical certificate issued to the second Respondent by Oscar Hospital on 28^th July, 2016. He was admitted in the said hospital on 10^th July, 2016. The certificate shows that the second Respondent suffered three CLWs, one lacerated wound and one abrasion.

¶15

3 There is an affidavit-in-reply filed by the second Respondent. In the affidavit-in-reply, he has stated that there was a misunderstanding between him and the Applicants and now the issue is settled. He has recorded his no objection for quashing the FIR.

¶16

4 From the statement of the second Respondent on the basis of which FIR was registered, it appears to us that there was an altercation between the second Respondent and his friends on one hand

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

apl-857.16.odt

¶19

and the Applicants on the other hand. Admittedly, the second Respondent and his friends had consumed liquor. The altercation led to act of assault on the part of the Applicants.

¶20

5 Looking to the injuries sustained by the second Respondent and looking to the assertions in the statements of the second Respondent it appears to us that the offence will not fall in the category of heinous or serious offence. It cannot be said to be an offence against the society at large. It appears to be a result of altercation between two groups. The Applicants and the second Respondent are residing in the same locality.

¶21

6 The applicants have on their own deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- by way of a donation to the Police Welfare Fund. Receipts in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and 30,000/- respectively are tendered across the Bar.

¶22

7 Considering the facts of the case, the law laid down by the

¶23

Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1 will be applicable. Accordingly, the application must succeed and we pass the following order :-

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

3 of 4

apl-857.16.odt

ORDER

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

¶29

(a) That this Hon'ble Court may pass appropriate orders/writ/directions and quash and set aside all the proceedings arising out of and the FIR bearing C.R.No.380 of 2016 registered with Malwani Police Station, Mumbai.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

4 of 4

Navin Chikaya Pujari and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navin Chikaya Pujari 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

Mr.Stanley Victor Pereira Vs Mrs. Mildred Stanley Pereira

Sameer Fakruddin Shaikh and Ors. Vs Amit Shankar Utekar and Ors.

Najim Mukhtar Aalam Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Mustafa Zakirali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

H.S.D'Lima Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Yeshwant T. Oke and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.