Allowed

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2019APPLN/2585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, while hearing two criminal applications, quashed two First Information Reports after recording satisfaction of amicable settlement between the applicants, complainants, and injured witnesses, citing prevention of abuse of process and bleak prospects of conviction.

What did the court decide?

First Information Reports No. I-435 of 2018 and No. I-447 of 2018 were quashed and set aside; both Criminal Applications dismissed as sub judice.

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

cra2585.18+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2585 OF 2018

¶6

1) Kamal s/o Mohammad Shaikh, Age-34 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Takali Miya, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶7

2) Atik s/o Latif Shaikh, Age-34 years, Occu:Driver, R/o-Khatik Galli, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶8

3) Nisar s/o Lalabhai Shaikh, Age-40 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Takali Miya, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶9

4) Samir s/o Mohammad Shaikh, Age-37 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Takali Miya, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶10

5) Rafik s/o Dagubhai Shaikh, Age-31 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Guha, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶11

6) Tausif Rafiq Shaikh, Age-30 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Khatik Galli, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar

¶12

...APPLICANTS

¶13

cra2585.18+

¶14

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Police Station
 Officer, Rahuri Police Station,
 Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶17

2) Abdul s/o Daulat Shaikh,
 Age-40 years, Occu:Business,
 R/o-Rahuri College Rd.,
 Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri,
 Dist-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS

¶18

 ...
 Mr.J.I. Shaikh Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.S.B. Narwade, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.T.J. Momin Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 ...

¶19

WITH

¶20

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3236 OF 2018

¶21

1) Abdul s/o Daulat Shaikh,
 Age-42 years, Occu:Business,
 R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri,
 Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶22

2) Yasin s/o Abdul Shaikh,
 Age-21 years, Occu:Labour,
 R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri,
 Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶23

3) Imran s/o Abdul Shaikh,
 Age-19 years, Occu:Labour,
 R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri,
 Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶24

cra2585.18+

¶25

¶26

4) Husain s/o Daulat Shaikh, Age-50 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶27

5) Subhani s/o Husain Shaikh, Age-22 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar, 6) Aslam s/o Husain Shaikh, Age-24 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Near Rahuri College, Rahuri, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar ...APPLICANTS

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Rahuri Police Station, Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶30

2) Salim s/o Karim Shaikh,
 Age-27 years, Occu:Business,
 R/o-Takali Miya, Rahuri,
 Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS

¶31

...

¶32

 Mr.T.J. Momin Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.J.I. Shaikh Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 ...

¶33

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶34

 R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶35

cra2585.18+

¶36

¶37

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT :30TH JANUARY, 2019

¶38

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 5TH FEBRUARY, 2019

¶39

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶40

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶41

heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶42

2.Pursuant to the notices issued to the

¶43

Respondents, the Applicants and Respondent No.2 in
respective Applications have amicably settled the

¶44

dispute.RespondentNo.2,inrespective

¶45

Applications, have filed the affidavits. There are
five injured witnesses in the alleged incident.
The injured witnesses have also filed the
affidavits.

¶46

3.In Criminal Application No.2585 of 2018,

¶47

Respondent No.2 – Abdul Daulat Shaikh, and two

¶48

cra2585.18+

¶49

¶50

injured witnesses namely, Aslam s/o Husain Shaikh,
Yasin s/o Abdul Shaikh have filed the affidavits.
In the said affidavits, it is stated that the
Applicants are their close relatives and all of
them are in same business of chicken at Rahuri. It
is further stated in the affidavits considering
the relations between the parties, they have
decided to settle the dispute amicably so as to
maintain cordial relations in future. There are
other details stated in the affidavits. It is also
stated that the parties have settled their dispute
before their elderly relatives and respected
persons of their community. It is stated that
Respondent No.2 and injured witnesses, Aslam s/o
Husain Shaikh and Yasin s/o Abdul Shaikh have no
objection to quash the First Information Report.

¶51

4.In Criminal Application No.3236 of 2018,
the affidavits are filed by Respondent No.2 –
Salim s/o Karim Shaikh and injured witnesses,

¶52

cra2585.18+

¶53

¶54

namely, Tausif s/o Rafiq Shaikh and Kamal Mohammad
Shaikh. It is stated in the affidavits that all
the Applicants and Respondent No.2 are in the same
business of chicken at Rahuri and the injuries
sustained by the injured witnesses are simple in
nature and caused in the scuffle on trifle issue.
It is submitted that there was quarrel between the
Applicants in both the Applications and in anger
they made cross complaints against each other. It
is stated in the affidavits that in order to
maintain cordial relations and considering the
relations between the parties, and to maintain
good relations in future, they have decided to
amicably settle the dispute. It is further stated
in the affidavits that, Respondent No.2 and the
said injured witnesses have no objection to quash
the First Information Report.

¶55

5.On 30th January, 2019, the Applicants and

¶56

the informants, as well as the injured witnesses

¶57

cra2585.18+

¶58

¶59

were present before this Court. This Court has
recorded the satisfaction that, it is voluntary
act of the respective informants and injured

¶60

witnesses, and also the Applicants to arrive at
amicable settlement.

¶61

6.We have carefully perused the contents of
both the First Information Reports. It appears
that scuffle took place on the trifle issue of
alleged non-payment of Rs.20,000/-. It is true
that some injuries caused to the injured from both

¶62

the sides, but except one injury which is grievous
in nature, all other injuries caused to the
injured witnesses are simple in nature. As
observed earlier, the scuffle took place on trifle
issue. Since Respondent No.2 (informants) in both
the Applications and the injured witnesses have
amicably settled the dispute and filed affidavits
to that effect, they are not going to support the
prosecution case, and therefore, the chances of

¶63

cra2585.18+

¶64

¶65

conviction would be bleak.

¶66

7.The Supreme Court in the case of Gian

¶67

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another1 has held
that, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
by accepting the settlement to secure ends of
justice and to prevent abuse of process of law.

¶68

8.In view of the discussion made in

¶69

foregoing paragraphs, keeping in view the
exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case
of Gian Singh, cited supra, in order to prevent
the abuse of process of Court, it would be
appropriate to accede to the joint prayer of the
Applicants and Respondent No.2 and also the
injured witnesses, to quash both the First
Information Reports.

¶70

12012 (10) SCC Page 303

¶71

cra2585.18+

¶72

¶73

9.Accordingly, the First Information Report
No. I-435 of 2018 registered with Rahuri Police
Station on 3rdJuly, 2018 for the offence

¶74

punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 324,
327, 427, 323, 337, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 25 of the Arms
Act and Section 37(1)(3) of the Bombay Police Act;
and, the First Information Report No.I-447 of 2018
registered with Rahuri Police Station on 8th July,
2018, for the offence punishable under Section
143, 147, 324, 427, 323, 337, 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal code and Section 4, 25 of the Arms
Act, are quashed and set aside.

¶75

10.Rule made absolute in above terms. Both

¶76

the Criminal Applications stand disposed of,
accordingly.

¶77

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶78

asb/JAN19

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh 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

Dumya @ Lakhan @ Inamdar Shrimant Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipak S/O. Subhash Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil S/O Vishwanath Pathave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Laxman Ghogardare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul S/O. Daulat Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.