Allowed

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Apr 2016APPLN/2246/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal applications seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 307 IPC and other offences. Following a settlement between parties citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the Sessions and Regular Criminal cases. Applicants were directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the State before the rule became absolute.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Case No. 56/2012 and Regular Criminal Case No. 2059/2011 stood quashed.

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criappln2246.16.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2246 OF 2016

¶5

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman age 75 years, occ. Retired r/o Nehrunagar, Gut no. 3 Katkat Gate, Aurangabad.

¶6

Shaikh Irfan Haji Akbar age 37 years, occ. Business r/o Nehrunagar, Gut no. 3 Katkat Gate, Aurangabad.

¶7

Altaf Khan Haji Akbar Khan age 44 years, occ. Business r/o Mahada Colony, Champa Chouk near Nisarbhai Kirana Stores, Aurangabad.

¶8

Firoz Khan Nasim Khan age 34 years, occ. Business r/o Sanjay nagar, Near Water Tank, Aurangabad. . . PETITIONERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra 2. Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin age 44 years, occ. Business r/o infront of Sadat Masjid Roshan Gate, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. N.S. Ghanekar with Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, advocates for applicants. Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for the State. Mr. A.S. Ransingh, advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶12

criappln2246.16.doc

¶13

¶14

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2254 OF 2016

¶15

Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin age 44 years, occ. Business r/o infront of Sadat Masjid Roshan Gate, Aurangabad.

¶16

.. APPLICANT

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

The State of Maharashtra

¶19

Firoz Khan Nasim Khan age 34 years, occ. Business r/o Sanjay Nagar, Near Water Tank, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr.A.S. Ransing, advocate for applicant. Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for the State.

¶21

Mr. N.S. Ghanekar with Mr. Rupesh Agrawal, advocates for respondent no. 2.

¶22

=====

¶23

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 28^th APRIL, 2016.

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶25

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶26

These are the applications seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated in pursuance to lodging of First Information Report and submission of charge-sheet to the Court and registration of Sessions Case No. 56/2012 pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 6, Aurangabad for offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, Regular Criminal Case No. 2059/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.

¶27

criappln2246.16.doc

¶28

¶29

Registration of both the crimes is the outcome of the cross complaints presented by respective parties. Learned counsel representing the complainant and accused inform that the parties h ave decided to settle their dispute amicably out of the Court. In Criminal Application No. 2246/2016, charge levelled against applicant/accused is in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the injury certificate, it transpires that the injuries caused to the victim are of simple nature. Similarly, in Criminal Application No. 2254/2016 also, it transpires that injuries caused to the victim are not of serious nature. Both the parties with a view to maintain harmonious relations with each other have decided to settle their differences. Both the parties have presented affidavits duly signed by the applicants / accused as well as complainant. Learned counsel representing the parties have identified accused and as a token thereof have put their signature on the affidavits. Those are taken on record and marked 'X' and 'X1' for identification.

¶30

Since the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably, it is more than clear that even if the trial proceeds, the same is not likely to result in conviction. The charges levelled against accused are not of such a nature those can be construed to be the offences against public peace. In view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the mater of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466 , according to us, there shall not be any impediment in

¶31

criappln2246.16.doc

¶32

¶33

permitting the parties to enter into compromise and as a consequence thereof, to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against accused as well as proceeding of Sessions Case and Regular Criminal Case pending before the respective Courts.

¶34

In view of above, both the criminal applications are allowed. Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 56/2012 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge – 6, Aurangabad for offence punishable under section 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 2059/2011 stand quashed. It is informed that in both the matters the investigating agency has presented charge-sheet and in one of the matters, charges are also framed. We are of the opinion that the huge money and time is spent by the State for maintaining the investigating agency. The applicants are instrumental in moving investigating machinery which has conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in both the offences. Since the applicants are instrumental in requiring investigating agency to make efforts and spend valuable time in aiding the complainants, they are liable to compensate the State at least as a token of contribution for the inconvenience caused to the State machinery. In this view of the matter, applicants shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each application, in this Court, within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to condition of deposit of cost as directed above, criminal proceeding shall be quashed. Rule made absolute.

¶35

( P. R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others 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

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anant S/O Manohar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Azaroddin Badorddin Kazi. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Sahebrao Ahire. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other.

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.