Allowed

Juned Muslim Qureshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2017APPLN/6030/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad quarshed two First Information Reports after finding that the accused, complainants, and injured persons (who are from the same community) had amicably settled the dispute voluntarily without coercion, rendering continued criminal proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

Both First Information Reports bearing Crime No.105/2016 and Crime No.103/2016 were quashed and set aside, and the Criminal Applications were disposed of.

Juned Muslim Qureshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6032 OF 2016

¶5

1. Kalu Pahelwan @ Wasim Ajij Qureshi Age: 28 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶6

2. Shaikh Rizwan Burhan Qureshi, Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶7

3. Khalid Burhan Qureshi, Age: 34 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶8

4. Adil Burhan Qureshi, Age: 18 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶9

5. Sadik Burhan Qaureshi, Age: 40 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶10

6. Amjad Shaikh Jipa Qureshi, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶11

7. Aashim Jipa Qureshi, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶12

8. Saddam Qureshi, Age: 28, Occ: Business,

¶13

9. Imran Mulla Shaikh Tumba Khan Qureshi, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶14

10. Shaikh Hashim Shaikh Bhika Qureshi Age: 28 Yrs, Occ: Business

¶15

11. Salim Ayyub Qureshi, Age: 60 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶16

12. Rustam Ayyub Qureshi, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶17

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶18

¶19

13. Makku Ajij Qureshi, Age: 28 yrs, Occ. Business,

¶20

All R/o. Kasai Mohalla, Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar. APPLICANTS
 / Accused

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I., Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar.

¶23

2. Shaikh Juned Sheikh Muslim Qureshi, Age: 25 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kasai Mohalla, Nandurbar, Nandurbar. RESPONDENTS

¶24

...

¶25

Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, APP for the Respondent No.
1 / State

¶26

Mr.S.S.Kazi, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶27

...

¶28

WITH

¶29

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6030 OF 2016

¶30

1. Juned Muslim Qureshi, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶31

2. Wasim Muslim Qureshi, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶32

3. Akil Yusuf Qureshi, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶33

4. Shakil Yusuf Qureshi, Age: 49 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶34

5. Irfan Salim Qureshi, Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶35

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶36

¶37

6. Bablu @ Imran Salim Qureshi, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶38

7. Arshi Yunus Qureshi, Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶39

8. Mukhtar Haji Usman Patel, Age: 23, Occ: Business,

¶40

9. Aacchu @ Ashfaq Haji Usman Patel, Age: 52 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶41

10. Haji Yunus Haji Usman Patel, Age: 54 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶42

11. Imtya @ Imtiyaz Haji Yunus Qureshi, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ: Business,

¶43

12. Kamil Khalid Qureshi, Age: 16 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶44

13. Shoaib Muslim Qureshi, Age: 20 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶45

14. Muslim Haji Usman Patel, Age: 58, Occ: Business,

¶46

15. Majidkhan Anis Qureshi, Age: 36 yrs, Occ:Business,

¶47

16. Saabir Khan Anis Qureshi, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Business,

¶48

All R/o. Kasai Mohalla, Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar.

¶49

 APPLICANTS

¶50

 / Accused

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I., Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar.

¶53

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶54

¶55

2.Rizwan Shaikh Burhan Khan Qureshi,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Kasai Mohalla, Nandurbar,
Nandurbar. RESPONDENTS

¶56

...

¶57

Mr.S.S.Kazi, Advocate for the applicants
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, APP for the Respondent No.
1 / State

¶58

Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶59

...

¶60

Reserved on : 19.12.2016
 Pronounced on : 05.01.2017

¶61

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶62

1. Heard.

¶63

2. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶64

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶65

3.The learned counsel appearing for
applicants and informants i.e. respondent

¶66

no.2, in both Criminal Applications, jointly

¶67

submit that the parties to this application,

¶68

with an intervention of the elderly persons

¶69

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶70

¶71

in the community have settled the dispute
amicably. In both the cases, the accused and
the complainant/injured are belonging to the
same community and most of them are resident
in the same locality, and therefore, they
decided to settle the dispute amicably, and
accordingly, they have amicably settled the
dispute. Therefore, they submit that the
First Information Report bearing Crime No.
105/2016 registered at City Police Station,
Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 323, 337 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the
Indian Arms Act and the First Information
Report bearing Crime No.103/2016 registered
at City Police Station, Nandurbar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 143,
147, 148, 149, 336 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code may be quashed and set aside.

¶72

4.Pursuant to the notices issued to

¶73

the respondents, the terms of settlement are

¶74

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶75

¶76

filed i.e. compromise between the parties.
The said documents are signed by the
applicants and also the informants in both
Criminal Applications.

¶77

5.We have carefully perused the

¶78

investigation papers. We have also asked the
injured persons, who are present in the

¶79

Court, whether the compromise is an outcome
of their voluntary act with free will and
consent or same is under coercion. They

¶80

stated that, compromise between the parties
is with free will and without any coercion.
They further stated that, they have sustained
simple injuries and said injuries are not
inflicted by the dangerous weapons.

¶81

6.We have considered the facts of the

¶82

case, terms of compromise, investigation
papers,weaponsusedandmedical

¶83

certificates, in the light of the exposition of law in the case of Narinder Singh and

¶84

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶85

¶86

others Vs. State of Punjab and another¹ and in particular principles laid down in para 29.1 to 29.7 of the said Judgment, and we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts of this case, it would be proper to accept the terms of compromise and quash the First Information Reports so as to prevent the abuse of process of law / court. In view of the settlement/compromise, informants are not going to support prosecution case and consequently chances of conviction are blink/remote. The applicants/accused have also stated that they will not indulge into such alleged offences in future.

¶87

7.Since applicants and informants have
already settled the dispute amicably and they

¶88

claim that they are from the same community

¶89

and residing in the same locality, and
consequently decided not to proceed with the
further proceedings based upon the first

¶90

1 [2014] 6 SCC 466

¶91

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶92

¶93

information report bearing Crime No.105/2016
registered at City Police Station, Nandurbar,
for the offences punishable under Sections

¶94

143, 147, 149, 324, 323, 337 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Indian
Arms Act and the first information report
bearing Crime No.103/2016 registered at City
Police Station, Nandurbar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148,
149, 336 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
no fruitful purpose will be served to
continuethefurtherinvestigation/
proceedings on the basis of the afore-
mentioned crimes.

¶95

8.In that view of the matter, both the
First Information Reports i.e. the first
information report bearing Crime No.105/2016
registered at City Police Station, Nandurbar,
for the offences punishable under Sections

¶96

143, 147, 149, 324, 323, 337 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Indian

¶97

6032.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶98

¶99

Arms Act and the first information report
bearing Crime No.103/2016 registered at City
Police Station, Nandurbar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148,
149, 336 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are

¶100

quashed and set aside.

¶101

9.Rule is made absolute on above

¶102

terms. Both Criminal Applications are
disposed of accordingly.

¶103

 Sd/-

¶104

 Sd/-

¶105

 [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶106

DDC

Juned Muslim Qureshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juned Muslim Qureshi 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

Trivani Parasnath Khaire and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Razzak S/O Shaikh Anwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lahu Shrirang Gatkal. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Manik Nagappa Birajdar and Ors.

Dnyanoba Baburao Pandhare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu S/O Vithoba Waghmare Vs Rajabhau S/O Chhaburao Salunke and Others