Quashed

Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji Jamal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Digras, Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021APL/943/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, quashed criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court accepted a settlement between the applicant and the complainant, relying on Supreme Court precedent that courts should ordinarily accept compromise terms in such matters to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings under Sessions Case No.19/2020 consequent on FIR No.853/2018 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji Jamal Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Cri.APL No.943.21-J.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 943 OF 2021

¶5

Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji Jamal, Age – 43 years, Occu. - Labourer, R/o. Chand Nagar, Digras, Tq. Digras, Dist. - Yavatmal.

¶6

... APPLICANT

¶7

----VERSUS----

¶8

State of Maharashtra, through PSO Digras, Tq. - Digras, District – Yavatmal.

¶9

Mahalka Najnin Mohammad Ismail, Age – 43 Yrs., Occu. - Service, R/o. Chand Nagar, Digras, Tq.- Digras, Dist. - Yavatmal

¶10

... NON-APPLICANTS

¶11

Shri Imran Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant/State.

¶12

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 29.09.2021.

¶13

JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the proceedings initiated against him vide Session Case No.19/2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, District

¶17

2 Cri.APL No.943.21-J.odt

¶18

Yavatmal in consequence of the First Information Report bearing No.853/2018 registered with the non-applicant No.1 – Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 447, 353, 294, 509 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with the accusations that the applicant held hand of the non-applicant No.2 with bad intention and abused the non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that the applicant committed such act which offended modesty of the non-applicant No.2. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicant.

¶20

During pendency of the proceedings, the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 have arrived at settlement and the applicant has therefore filed present application challenging continuation of proceedings against the applicant.

¶21

The non-applicant No.2 has filed affidavit dated

¶22

26.09.2021. In the said affidavit, the non-applicant No.2 has given her no objection for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Sessions Case No.19/2020 filed against the applicant.

¶23

Today, the non-applicant No.2 is personally present in

¶24

the Court and stated that she has settled her dispute with the

¶25

3 Cri.APL No.943.21-J.odt

¶26

applicant. She stated that she has settled the dispute without any pressure or duress exercised on her. The non-applicant No.2 was identified by the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.

¶27

We have carefully considered the allegations in the First Information Report and taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is advisable that, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly over-burdened, as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

¶28

We are, therefore, satisfied that continuation of the proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of Court.

¶29

10. We therefore, pass following order :

¶30

The proceedings against the applicant vide Sessions Case No.19/2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, District Yavatmal in consequence of the First Information Report No.853/2018 registered with the

¶31

4 Cri.APL No.943.21-J.odt

¶32

non-applicant No.1- Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 447, 353, 294, 509 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

¶33

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

RGurnule

Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji Jamal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Digras, Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji Jamal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Digras, Dist. Yavatmal and Another

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

Vilas S/O Ganpatrao Dhole and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gitti Khadan Nagpur City Nagpur and Another

Kunal S/O. Pandurang Raikwar and Othr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Nerparsopant, and Anr.

Akshay S/O Kailashrao Gaikwad and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso City Kotwali Akola Tq. and Dist.Akola and Another

Santosh Dadarao Vidhate and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Gadge Nagar Dist.Amravati and Another

Dr. Ankush S/O Dnyaneshwar Khichade and 6 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur. and Another

Rachana D/O Chittaranjan Deshmukh @ Rachana W/O Amar Bhongade Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Hudkeshwar Dist Nagpur and Another