Allowed

Moulali Gafur Faras v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2021WP/1475/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR was allowed as the parties amicably settled the dispute arising from an exchange of words between neighbours. The court held that continuing the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law as the wrong was primarily personal and the possibility of conviction became remote.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside the First Information Report dated 8.12.2020 in C.R. No. 521/2020 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner.

Moulali Gafur Faras Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP-1475-2021.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by Vishwanath Vishwanath S. Sherla 1 / 6 S. Sherla Date: 2021.03.25 19:54:17 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2021

¶4

Moulali Gafur Faras
Age: 25 Years, Occ- Service,
R/o. Haidra, Tal:- Akkalkot,
Dist. Solapur.

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Maharashtra [Through Akkalkot South Police Station Vide CR No. 521/2020]

¶8

2.Saibanna Pirappa Harijan
Age- 22 years, Occ- Labour,
R/o Haidra, Tal- Akkalkot
Dist. Solapur....RESPONDENTS
...

¶9

Mr. Ritesh Thobde for Petitioner.
Mr. Nitesh Mohite for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.

¶10

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

¶11

RESERVED ON : 24^th MARCH, 2021. PRONOUNCED ON: 25^th MARCH 2021.

¶12

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

¶13

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

¶14

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

2.Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Respondent

¶16

No. 2 jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1475-2021.doc

2 / 6

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit on
behalf of Respondent No. 2. Paragraphs 2 to 8 of the said affidavit reads as

¶21

under:-

¶22

2)I further state that, I have been living at the
above stated address along with my family since
time immemorial. The house of the Petitioner is
adjacent to mine at village Haidra. On 8.12.2020
there was exchange of words between the
Petitioner and myself. I say that, because of the
same I had lodged above mentioned FIR. However,
the village elders and persons of repute in the
community have brought about an understanding
between myself and the Petitioner. I realise that it
is in the best interest of both our families that we
live together in harmony and without any
animosity towards each other. I say that I have
unconditionally accepted the settlement with the
Petitioners considering the future of our families.

¶23

3)I say that, in view of the said amicable
settlement, it is my wish that the Petitioner be
released of all the offences registered against him
at my behest.

¶24

4)I further state that, the relations with the Petitioner have amicably been resolved and no untoward incident has taken place either prior to the one mentioned in the FIR nor thereafter.

¶25

5)I state that, due to the close proximity between myself and the Petitioner also in order to maintain

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1475-2021.doc

3 / 6

co-ordeal relations considering our respective
future lives, myself and the Petitioners have
amicably arrived at a settlement. I state that it is
my free wish that the Petitioner be released from
all offences leveled against him at my behest.

¶30

6)I further state that, I have no grievance against
the Petitioner and have agreed to the settlement
out of my own free will and consent without any
force or coercision on the part of the Petitioner.

¶31

7)I wish that the Petitioner be released of the
offences charged against him in C.R. No.
521/2020 registered with Akkalkot South Police
Station Police Station, Dist. Solapur.

¶32

8)I further state that, in view of the above, I have
no hesitation in permitting the FIR bearing C.R.
No. 521/2020 and the proceedings arising out of
the same against the Petitioner being quashed and
set aside.

¶33

3.Since the present petition is filed for quashing the FIR for the
offences registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court by
order dated 22.03.2021 directed the Respondent No. 2 to file an additional
affidavit. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 filed his additional affidavit dated
22.03.2021. In Paragraph 4 of the said additional affidavit Respondent No. 2
stated thus:-

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1475-2021.doc

4 / 6

4)I say that, I realized that the intention of the
Petitioner was never to insult/intimidate or
humiliate me as a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe in public. There was simply an
exchange of words between us due to a heated
quarrel and loss of temper of myself and the
Petitioner over providing a glass of water to him.

¶38

4. On 22.03.2021 the Respondent No. 2 (original complainant)

¶39

was present before this Court. On interaction with him he stated that it is his
voluntary act to enter into the settlement and give consent for quashing of
the impugned FIR.

¶40

5.Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, no fruitful
purpose would be served by continuing the further investigation of C.R. No.
521 of 2020 dated 08.12.2020 registered Akkalkot South Police Station for
the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further continuation of aforesaid
investigation would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the
law/Court. From reading an additional affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent
that the provisions of aforementioned Special Act are not attracted.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1475-2021.doc

5 / 6

6.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
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.

¶45

7.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the
opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:-

¶46

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-1475-2021.doc

6 / 6

a)This Hon’ble Court by invoking writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r.w.
inherent powers under S. 482 of Cr.P.Cmay issue
appropriate writ, order and/or direction and quash
and set aside the impugned First Information Report
dated 8.12.2020in C.R. No. 521/2020 registered
with Akkalkot South Police StationPolice Station for
the offences U/s. 452, 323, 504, 506of IPC and U/s.
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
subsequently all proceedings arising therefrom
against the Petitioner.

¶51

8.Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition stands

¶52

disposed of accordingly.

¶53

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶54

Bhagyawant Punde

Moulali Gafur Faras v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moulali Gafur Faras 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

Gajanan Jaywant Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Umesh Uday Bhuvad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarfaraz Tajammul Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ayaz Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shabir Abdul Rehman Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Chandrakant Gurav Vs Manoj Dattaram Gurav and Anr.