Allowed

Owais Abdul Razzak Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2021WP/1073/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a criminal writ petition by quashing an FIR registered against the petitioner for Section 324, 323, 504 IPC offenses. The court held that since the accused and victim settled their dispute amicably and conviction chances were remote, continuing the case would abuse court process. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued to quash and set aside the FIR dated 06.12.2019 (C.R. No. 413 of 2019) against the petitioner.

Owais Abdul Razzak Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

13-CRWP-1073-2021.doc

¶2

1 / 5

¶3

Digitally signed by Vishwanath

¶4

Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date: 2021.03.18 17:43:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1073 OF 2021

¶6

Mr. Owais Abdul Razzak Shaikh
Age- 45, Occ- Business, Residing at
175/193, Memni Building, Flat No. 8,
Maulana Azad Road, Sagar Hotel,
Nagpada,Mumbai- 400008.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Nagpada
Police Station.
2.Mr. Zubair Shakil Khan
Aged: 38, Occ: Business, Residing at
Room No. 01, Pujari Building, First
Floor, Mastan Talao, J J Marg
Bombay- 400008....RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Mohd. Arif Siddiqui for Petitioner
Mr. Irfan Abdul Aziz for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State.
Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court.

¶11

 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
 MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : 17th MARCH, 2021.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE]:

¶14

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

¶15

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

Bhagyawant Punde

¶17

13-CRWP-1073-2021.doc

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

2.Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Respondent
No. 2 submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The
Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit. Paragraph 2 to 4 of the said
affidavit reads as under:-

¶20

2) I state that due to some misunderstanding, hasty situations, the said F.I.R. has been lodged against the Petitioner and that, the Petitioner has also lodged a Cross F.I.R. against me under the same offence.

¶21

3) I state that both of us have been residing within
the same area and locality since many years,
therefore we are neighbours to each other and I
have resolved all my disputes with the Petitioner
along with the intervention of our family members,
family friends, and colleagues as there were certain
mistakes committed by me too, on the day when the
incident had taken place. Therefore, I do not wish to
proceed against them and thus, I wish to withdraw
the said F.I.R.

¶22

4) I state that I have realized my mistake which
was done in a hasty situation and due to
misunderstanding, but now I have settled the
dispute amicably with the above named Petitioner,
therefore I am no more interested to proceed with
the F.I.R. lodged by me. Moreover, pendency of the
present proceeding would harm and destroy the
reputation of the above named Petitioners as well as
myself.

¶23

Bhagyawant Punde

¶24

13-CRWP-1073-2021.doc

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

3.Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. He stated that it
is his voluntary act to enter into the settlement and give consent for
quashing the FIR. It is submitted that entire incident had happened due to
misunderstanding.

¶27

4.Since the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the
allegations in the FIR, the chances of conviction of Petitioner is remote and
bleak. Further continuation of investigation of FIR dated 6th December 2019
being C.R. No. 413 of 2019 registered at Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 of IPC, would
tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court.

¶28

5.The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh v. State of Punjab
and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising
out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the

¶29

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶30

Bhagyawant Punde

¶31

13-CRWP-1073-2021.doc

¶32

4 / 5

¶33

offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. It is further held that, as inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶34

6.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to secure the
ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the law/Court, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed, however, cost deserves to be imposed
on the Petitioner. Hence, we pass the following order:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

A)

¶37

The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶38

(a), which reads as under:-

¶39

(a)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ order/
direction in the nature of writ calling for records and
proceedings of F.I.R. dated 06th December, 2019 being
C.R. No. 413 of 2019 registered at Nagpada Police
Station, Mumbai lodged by the Respondent No. 2
U/s’s 324, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code. After
examining the legality and propriety thereof, this

¶40

Bhagyawant Punde

¶41

13-CRWP-1073-2021.doc

¶42

5 / 5

¶43

Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
said F.I.R. against the Petitioner on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to
grant in the circumstances of the case.

¶44

B)

¶45

The Petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees

¶46

Twenty Five Thousand), in the account mentioned

¶47

herein below, within three weeks from today.

¶48

Name of Bank of Account:	: Children Aid Soc Donation
Bank Account No.	: 02370100005612
Bank Name	: UCO Bank
Branch	: Matunga Mumbai
IFSC Code	: UCBA0000237

¶49

C)

¶50

It is made clear that this order will take effect only

¶51

after depositing the aforesaid amount of cost in the

¶52

account mentioned herein above.

¶53

D)

¶54

Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ

¶55

petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶56

E)

¶57

List the matter under the caption ‘For Compliance’
on 15.04.2021 for compliance of directions

¶58

contained in this order.

¶59

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶60

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶61

Bhagyawant Punde

Owais Abdul Razzak Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Owais Abdul Razzak 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sahadev Yatnalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jeetendra Ashok Bhosale Vs the Divisional Commissioner Council Hall Pune and Ors.

Mehul Mahendra Tundejwala and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zubair Shakil Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kripal Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akshit Vimal Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.