Allowed

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016APPLN/2726/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application seeking quashing of Sessions Case No.422 of 2010. The court held that after an amicable settlement and the complainant's remarriage, continuing the trial for offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC was futile and against the ends of justice, citing Narinder Singh. The proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Case No.422 of 2010 was quashed and set aside; bail bonds were cancelled and the applicants were set at liberty.

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2726 OF 2016

¶3

1. Shaikh Sardar s/o Shaikh Noor, Age : 60 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o Adul, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad

¶4

2. Shaikh Aref s/o Shaikh Sardar, Age : 35 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o Adul, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad

¶5

3. Nasrin w/o Shaikh Aref, Age : 30 years, Occ.: Household, R/o Adul, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad

¶6

4. Shannu w/o Ajij Pathan, Age : 33 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o Chinchkhed, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna

¶7

5. Shaikh Ajij s/o Nanekha Pathan Age : 40 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o Chinchkhed, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna ..APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

2. Shaikh Rahin w/o Shaikh Mujib, Age : 28 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o Ghodegaon, Tq. District Ahmednagar .. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent/State
Mr. Shaikh Mazhar Jahagirdar, Advocate for respondent
no.2

¶12

criapln2726-2016

¶13

¶14

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND

¶15

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶16

 Reserved On : 8th September, 2016
 Pronounced On: 23rd September, 2016

¶17

ORDER : (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2.Accused nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, who are facing

¶20

the trial bearing Sessions Case No.422 of 2010, pending
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, “I.P.C.”), have prayed for quashment of the said
criminal proceedings.

¶21

3.For the sake of convenience the parties are
hereinafter referred to by the same nomenclatures by

¶22

which they have been described in the above numbered
Sessions Case.

¶23

4.The informant (the present respondent no.2) had

¶24

married to the deceased accused no.1 viz: Shaikh Mujib
on 11.05.2008 at village Sonai. Accused nos. 2 and 3 are

¶25

the parents, accused no.4 is the brother, while accused

¶26

criapln2726-2016

¶27

¶28

no.6 is the sister of the deceased accused no.1. Accused

¶29

no.5 is the wife of accused no.4. Accused no.7 is the
husband of the accused no.6.

¶30

5.According to the informant, she was treated
properly by her husband and in-laws for a period about 4
to 5 months after the marriage. After they tortured her
with a view to compel her to bring one lakh rupees from
her maternal home. On 27.03.2010, accused nos.1 to 5
tried to kill her. Due to that she was admitted in Sai
Hospital at Aurangabad. Accused nos.5 and 6 had been to
the said hospital. They threatened her. The informant
lodged a report against the accused persons on
02.04.2010 in the Police Station at Pachod. On the basis
of that report, Crime No.I-26 of 2010 (for short,
“F.I.R.”) came to be registered against them for the
above mentioned offences. After conducting the
investigation, the accused persons came to be prosecuted

¶31

for the above mentioned offences by filing the
chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class at Paithan. The learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class committed the case to the Sessions Court at
Aurangabad for trial. Accordingly, Sessions Case No.422

¶32

4 criapln2726-2016

¶33

of 2010 came to be registered against the accused for

¶34

the above mentioned offences. During the pendency of the
above numbered case, the original accused no.1 i.e.
husband of the informant committed suicide. Accused no.3
also expired. As such, the proceedings stood abated
against both of them.

¶35

6.There has been amicable settlement between

¶36

accused nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on one hand and the
informant on the other. The informant has filed an
affidavit admitting the terms of settlement. She has
prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending
against the present applicants/accused.

¶37

7.The learned counsel for the applicants submits

¶38

that after the demise of accused no.1, the informant has
got remarried. He submits that the main allegations were
made against the deceased accused no.1. Therefore, after

¶39

the demise of accused no.1 there was no point in
prosecuting the case. In the circumstances, the parties
decided to settle the disputes amicably. He further
submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the present accused would be a futile exercise.

¶40

Relying on the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State

¶41

criapln2726-2016

¶42

¶43

of Punjab & Anr. 2014 All.M.R.(Cri) 1886, he submits
that the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶44

8.The learned counsel for the informant also
submits that in view of the change in the circumstances
after lodging of the F.I.R. by the informant, it would
be necessary to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶45

9.The informant has signed the terms of

¶46

settlement, whereby she voluntarily agreed to put the
above-numbered criminal proceedings to an end. She
further filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that she had
filed the F.I.R. against the accused under the heat of
anger and that she has no grievance against them. She
states that in the interest of better future of her

¶47

family and that of herself, it is necessary to quash the
above-numbered criminal proceedings.

¶48

10.Indisputedly, the informant has remarried after
the demise of accused no.1 Mujib. She has no grievance
whatsoever against the present accused, who are her in-
laws. In view of the terms of the settlement between the
present accused and the informant, there are no chances
of witnesses coming before the Court to support the case

¶49

6 criapln2726-2016

¶50

of the prosecution. In fact, the informant alone would

¶51

be the witness to state about the alleged ill-treatment
meted out to her within the four walls of her
matrimonial home. When the informant herself voluntarily
prays that the criminal proceedings should be quashed,
it would be a futile exercise to insist upon
continuation of the above numbered criminal proceedings
only because the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
has been added therein.

¶52

11.Considering the facts of the present case, in

¶53

our view the ends of justice would warrant quashment of
the above numbered criminal proceedings. The ratio laid

¶54

down in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors.(supra), is
fully applicable to the facts of the present case
wherein under the similar circumstances these had been
amicable settlement between the contesting parties.
Therefore, it was held that in view of the compromise
between the parties, there were minimal chances of the
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution
case. The chances of conviction, therefore, appeared to
be remote. It was opined that it would be unnecessary to
drag such proceedings. The compromise between the

¶55

criapln2726-2016

¶56

¶57

parties, therefore, was accepted and the criminal

¶58

proceedings were directed to be quashed.

¶59

12.In the above circumstances, we allow the

¶60

application with the following order.

¶61

(i) The criminal proceedings bearing Sessions Case
No.422 of 2010 are quashed and set aside.

¶62

(ii)The bail bonds of the applicants/accused are
cancelled. The applicants/accused be set at
liberty.

¶63

(iii)The Criminal Application is accordingly allowed
and disposed of.

¶64

Sd/-Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL][S.S. SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶65

mandawgad_sa/criapln2726-2016

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. v. 1. the State of Maharashtra.

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

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Vs Rajendrasingh Bhagwansingh Babri and Others

Krishna S/O Daulat Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Santosh S/O Narayan Kukar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O Ramrao Gawale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.