Allowed

Mijajabi Allabaksha Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2018WP/278/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings due to amicable settlement between parties and consent of the complainant to maintain harmony.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment, order, and proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2014 were quashed and set aside.

Mijajabi Allabaksha Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 of 3 5.WP.278.2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.278 OF 2016

¶4

Mijajbai Allabaksha Shaikh Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents

¶5

Mr.Umesh Mankapure for petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Tejas Pawar I/by Bhushan Walimbe for respondent no.2. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATE : 1^st August 2018

¶9

PC :

¶10

The petitioner is prosecuted for offence u/ss.363, 366 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The first information report was lodged on 2^nd June 2012 with Ashta Police Station by respondent no.2. The prosecution case is that the accused no.1 and the daughter of respondent no.2 were having affair. It was alleged that accused no.1 had kidnapped the victim girl and accused no.2 (petitioner) had facilitated the accused no.1 in the said crime and therefore by invoking Section 34 of IPC, the petitioner was impleaded as accused.

¶11

Pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The application for discharge was preferred before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. It is

¶12

Digitally ManishS signed byManish SThatteDate: Thatte 2018.08.0310:54:15 +0530

¶13

2 of 3 5.WP.278.2016.doc

¶14

submitted that during pendency of the petition, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Hence respondent no.2 had consented for quashing the proceedings against the applicant. Although prosecution case involved charge u/s 363 and 366 of IPC, the role that was attributed to the applicant is of helping the accused no.1 in commission of said crime. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused no.1 was working as a meson in the house of present petitioner wherein the victim got acquainted with him. Beyond that, there is no active role attributed to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

¶15

The complainant and accused are present in the Court. The complainant and accused are identified by respective advocates. The affidavit sworn by the complainant is tendered which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner and the complainant's family are residing adjacent to each other and they are near relatives. They had decided to reside peacefully and therefore it is decided not to prosecute the petitioner. Apparently it is clear that being relatives and neighbours, the parties intend to maintain harmonious relationship. The complainant has confirmed the contents of this affidavit and has stated that he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. In the circumstances, there is no impediment in allowing this petition. Hence, I pass following order :

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(i) The impugned judgment and order dated 16^th November 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur below Exhibit-7 in Sessions Case No.19 of 2014, as well as proceedings in Sessions Case

¶18

3 of 3 5.WP.278.2016.doc

¶19

No.19 of 2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Islampur, are quashed and set aside;

¶20

(ii) Criminal Writ Petition No.278 of 2016 is allowed in above terms and disposed off.

¶21

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶22

MST

Mijajabi Allabaksha Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mijajabi Allabaksha Shaikh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sairung Developers and Promoters Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Sairung Developers and Promoters Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Sairung Developer and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Throu K.R. Malik and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Kumar Ram Narayan Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajay Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akbar Abdul Mulla and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.