Allowed

Nathuram Vinayak Dhumal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2017WP/45/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the second respondent. The dispute relating to possession of a tenanted premises was civil in nature and had been settled. Finding the offenses not against the society at large, the court applied the Gian Singh test and quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; FIR NO.282 of 2016 registered with Respondent No.1 is quashed.

Nathuram Vinayak Dhumal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

crwp-45.17.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.45 OF 2017

¶5

Shri. Nathuram Vinayak Dhumal and Ors. … Petitioners Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Santaram Anant Tarale for the Petitioners. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Neeta Bhavar for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 21^st MARCH, 2017

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for final hearing.

¶12

2 The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) is for quashing the First Information Report registered at the instance of the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 448, 417, 420, 504, 506, 499 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on the basis of order dated 19^th July, 2016 made by the learned Judicial

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

crwp-45.17.odt

¶15

Magistrate, First Class, Court – 4, Pune under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶16

3 We have perused the complaint. There is an affidavit filed by the first informant. The affidavit records settlement between the present petitioner and the second respondent. Perusal of the complaint on the basis of which the FIR is registered shows that the real dispute between the parties was as regards the possession of a premises. The complaint itself records that there were several proceedings pending in the Court of Small Causes at Pune. The complaint is based on apprehension that the accused are likely to harass the complainant by filing false cases.

¶17

4 In the affidavit of the first informant it is stated that now

¶18

he has been put in possession of the tenanted premises subject matter of dispute.

¶19

5 Perusal of the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered shows that the dispute raised therein has predominantly a civil flavour. The dispute concerning premises has been settled by placing the first informant in possession. Considering the allegations in the complaint it cannot be said that the offences are against the society

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

crwp-45.17.odt

¶22

at large or are of serious nature. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab1, this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus and/or any other Writ Order or Direction and be pleased to quash the FIR NO.282 of 2016 registered with the Respondent No.1.”

¶26

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

¶27

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

¶28

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶29

3 of 3

Nathuram Vinayak Dhumal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathuram Vinayak Dhumal and Ors. 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

Arif Amir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Surendran Nair Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hashir Ashraf @ Tatya Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Riyasat Zakhir Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramandeep Singh Sassi @ Tally and Anr. Vs Balbirsingh Baldevsingh Lamba @ Ginni and Ors.

Mohammed Wahid S/O Abdul Shukoor Vs State Bank of India