Allowed

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

Bombay HC11 Aug 2016WP/2268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought the quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered for disputes involving non-bailable and compoundable offences. The High Court, noting a complete settlement, the non-heinous nature of the offence, and a donation to the Legal Services Authority, exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the pending trial.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings arising out of FIR C.R.No.121 of 2013 before JMFC, Kalyan, were quashed and set aside.

Sameer Fakruddin Shaikh and Ors. Vs Amit Shankar Utekar and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

crwp2268

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2268 OF 2016

¶5

Sameer Fakruddin Shaikh & Ors.
vs.
Amit Shankar Utekar & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Kartik S. Garg i/b Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal for the
Petitioners
Mr.Pawan Mali for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Ms M.H.Mhatre, APP for respondent No.4

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
 DATE : AUGUST 11, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1As the regular Bench presided over by Hon'ble
Shri Justice N.H.Patil has declined to take up this
writ petition. Therefore, as per the general
administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, this petition will have to be heard by this
Bench.

¶12

2Rule. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
to 3 waives service. The learned APP waives service
for the respondent No.4. Forthwith taken up for
final hearing.

¶13

3At the instance of the respondent No.1, the
impugned FIR was registered with Dombivali Police
Station for the offence punishable under sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian

¶14

2 crwp2268

¶15

Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet has
been filed. Prayer in the present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
is for quashing the proceedings on the basis of
compromise between the petitioners and the
respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶16

4Except for the offence alleged under sections
143, 147 and 149, all other offences alleged are
compoundable offences. We have perused the FIR. As
disclosed in the FIR, apart from the respondent
No.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the victims of the
alleged offence. Perusal of the statement of the
respondent No.1 on the basis of which the FIR was
registered shows that the incident occurred as a
result of a dispute over a parking place. There are
affidavits filed on record by the respondent Nos.1
to 3. In the affidavits, all of them have stated
that settlement has been brought about between them
and the petitioners at the intervention of their
respective family members and elders. It is pointed
out that the respondent No.3 and the petitioners are
living in the same locality. The respondent Nos.1
and 2 are related to the respondent No.3. In the
affidavit of the respondent No.3, it is stated that
as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are related to him, on
his request, they have also agreed to settle the
dispute amicably.

¶17

5We have perused the medical certificates on
record. We find that the offence alleged cannot be

¶18

3 crwp2268

¶19

categorised as a serious or heinous offence. It
cannot be said that the offence is against the
society at large. Apart from that, the affidavits
record a complete settlement of the dispute between
the petitioners and the respondents.

¶20

6The learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 state
that the said petitioners have complied with the
directions of this Court and in fact, they have
deposited Rs.50,000/- by way of donation to the
Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. In view of
the law laid down in case of Gian Singh versus State
of Punjab and another1, a case is made out to
exercise power under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973.

¶21

7Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by
passing the following order:

¶22

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

¶23

“(a) This Hon'ble Court may by invoking writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, issue appropriate
writ, order or direction and the proceedings
being R.C.C. No.570 of 2013 pending before 3rd
Court, JMFC, Kalyan arising out of FIR being
C.R.No.121 of 2013 registered with Dombivili
Police Station, under sections 147, 148, 149,

¶24

1(2012) 10 SCC page 303

¶25

4 crwp2268

¶26

324, 323, 504, 506 of IPC may kindly be
quashed and set aside.”

¶27

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

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Fakruddin Shaikh and Ors. v. Amit Shankar Utekar 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

Ateef Nasir Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manishkumar Ratanshi Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr.Stanley Victor Pereira Vs Mrs. Mildred Stanley Pereira

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

Dheeraj Babruwan Giri and Ors. Vs Priyanka Dhiraj Giri and Anr.