Allowed

Ihaad Mohteshim Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2017APL/415/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application to quash proceedings under sections 279 and 338 IPC and MV Act after the parties settled their personal dispute. The order imposes costs on the applicant to penalize misuse of judicial resources, failing which the application stands dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to Kirtikar Law Library within four weeks; otherwise dismissed automatically.

Ihaad Mohteshim Khan Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

9.apl415.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 415 OF 2015

¶4

Ihaad Mohteshim Khan. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Kavisha shah i/b. India Law Alliance, advocate for the applicant.

¶6

Mr. Selyun Pardes, advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J & SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the applicant at the outset

¶11

seeks deletion of the name of Respondent No. 4 as his whereabouts are not known. Leave granted. Necessary amendments shall be carried out during the course of the day.

¶12

2 The applicant has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the proceedings of C.C. No.

Talwalkar

1 of 4

9.apl415.15

105/JS/2013 pending on the file of the Principal Metropolitan Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dongri. The said case arises out of registration of FIR No. 216/2012 with Khar Police Station for offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶17

3 Pending the trial, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and accordingly filed consent terms before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for Greater Mumbai. The copies are annexed at Exh. F at page 54 and 58 of the compilation.

¶18

4 In pursuant to the understanding arrival at between the parties, the applicant has approached this Court for quashing of the subject criminal case. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed separate affidavit dated 23/4/2015. In paragraph—6 they have given no objection for quashing the proceedings pending before concerned Court.

¶19

5 Both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are personally present. On specific query, they have stated that they have gone through the contents of the affidavit and they have understood the same and they have signed the

2 of 4

Talwalkar

9.apl415.15

affidavit with free will and without coercion and influence. They also stated that they have no objection to quash the subject criminal proceedings pending against the applicant.

¶24

6 It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 AIR SCW 206, we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶25

7 Accordingly, the Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only), to be paid to the Kirtikar Law Library. The applicant shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this

3 of 4

Talwalkar

9.apl415.15

Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Criminal Application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶30

8 Subject to above, the Criminal Application stands disposed

¶31

off.

¶32

[SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J]

¶33

[RANJIT MORE, J]

¶34

4 of 4

¶35

Talwalkar

Ihaad Mohteshim Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ihaad Mohteshim Khan 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

Rajni Parikh and Anr. Vs Navin Hariram Somaiya and Anr.

Sanjeev Chandrakant Dighe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratap S. Kondamoori and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meghnath Gurunath Travadan @ Pillay Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohteshim Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Brahmanand Sonawale Vs the State of Maharashtra