Allowed

Hardik Bharat Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2019WP/2686/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR involving an altercation between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction, noting that prosecution would yield nothing fruitful, and ordered payment to the Police Welfare Fund.

What did the court decide?

C.R. No. I-68/2018 quashed and set aside, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to Police Welfare Fund.

Hardik Bharat Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

rsk

¶2

40-WP-2686-19.doc

¶3

1 / 2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2686 OF 2019

¶6

Hardik Bharat Patel

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr.Vaibhav N. Jagtap for the Petitioner.
Smt. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Rahul Arote for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & N. R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 17/12/2019.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

.Petitioner who has completed Bachelor of Civil Engineering
and respondent No.2 who is Chartered Accountant are before this Court
with request to quash and set aside FIR which is under sections 307, 323,
452, 354(A) and 506 of IPC. It appears that parties were in relationship
with each other.

¶15

2.Learned APP has invited our attention to medical document in
an attempt to show that medical evidence prima facie makes out a case of
section 307 of IPC.

¶16

3.We find that nasal bone of Respondent No.2 got fractured in
the incident. There is no mark on neck to suggest strangulation. Parties has
also stated that they are ready to pay reasonable amount to Police Welfare
Fund to prove their bonafide.

¶17

40-WP-2686-19.doc

¶18

2 / 2

¶19

rsk

¶20

4.Learned APP is opposing any intervention. However, taking
into account totality of facts as we find that nothing fruitful will come out
of prosecution, we are inclined to intervene in extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶21

5.Subject to parties together paying amount of Rs.50,000/- as
cost to Police Welfare Fund within 4 weeks from today, we make Rule
absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Accordingly, C.R. No. I-68/2018 are
quashed and set aside.

¶22

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶23

(B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Hardik Bharat Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardik Bharat Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Sudam Tirmali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Manik Lonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Sheshrao Shilwant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Uttam Mahadev Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Shoba Suresh Khot Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Vinaya Shailendra Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.