Allowed

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

Bombay HC25 Mar 2021WP/580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal writ petitions filed by petitioners who were respondents in cross-FIRs lodged against them. Finding a mutual settlement and civil flavour to the dispute, the Court held that quashing was necessary to prevent abuse of process. It imposed deposit of costs on the complainants as a condition precedent to allow the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cross-FIRs (CR No.145 of 2020 and CR No.143 of 2020) are quashed and set aside subject to the deposit of Rs. 5,000 costs by the complainants.

Shabir Abdul Rehman Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.580 OF 2021

¶4

1]Shabir Abdul Rehman Shaikh]
Age 26 years, Occu : Nil]
R/o : Maulana Azad Nagar, ]
4th Nijampura Bhivandi,]
Dist. Thane]
]

¶5

¶6

2]Rajiuddin @ Danish Shabiuddin Shaikh]
Age 35 yrs. Occu : Nil]
R/o. Iliyas Sheth Chawl,]
Shastri Nagar, Bhivandi,]
Dist – Thane]….. Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra ] ]

¶9

2]Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Shaikh]
Age : 40 years, Indian Inhabitant]
R/o. Room No.201, Near Nagina]
Masjid, Navi Vasti, Kalyan Road, ]
Bhivandi, Dist : Thane]….. Respondents.

¶10

ALONG WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.592 OF 2021

¶12

Ayaz Ahmed Shaikh]
Age 40 years, Occu – Labourer]
R/o. Room No.201, Near Nagina]
Masjid, Navi Wasti, Kalyan Road,]
Bhiwandi, Dist – Thane]….. Petitioner.

¶13

Versus

¶14

1]The State of Maharashtra

¶15

¶16

¶17

lgc

¶18

1 of 10

¶19

Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. Chandan Date: 2021.03.25 14:35:03 +0530

¶20

Laxmikant G. Chandan

¶21

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶22

2]Rajiuddin @ Danish Shabiuddin Shaikh]
Age 35 yrs. Occu : Nil]
R/o. Room of Guddu Sheth,]
Shastri Nagar, Bhivandi,]
Dist – Thane]….. Respondents.

¶23

Mr. Pradip Rajput i/by Mr. Sharad S Mulik for the Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.580 of 2021 and for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.592 of 2021.

¶24

Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.592 of 2021 and for
Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.580 of 2021.

¶25

Mrs. M H Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶26

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on: 23rd March 2021
Pronounced on: 25th March 2021.

¶27

JUDGMENT (PER S S SHINDE, J.)

¶28

1Both the Criminal Writ Petitions arise out of the cross FIRs lodged

¶29

by the complainants against each other in respect of the incident occurred on
20/02/2020, hence both the Criminal Writ Petitions are being disposed of by

¶30

this common judgment.

¶31

2Rule in both the Criminal Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable

¶32

forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.

¶33

3The case of the complainant – Respondent No.2 Ayaz Ahmed

¶34

2 of 10

¶35

lgc

¶36

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶37

Shaikh in Criminal Writ Petition No.580 of 2021 is that, on 19/02/2020 the
complainant did internal work of the office of one Abdul Shety and went there
to collect his money, he was asked to come on next date. Thereafter the
complainant by 11 pm went to have liquor with his friend Rehman. At about
2.30 am the complainant was about to go to home, one person by name Yusuf
came there. The complainant demanded money from him. Yusuf abused the
complainant and started assaulting him. The friends of said Yusuf by name
Shabir and Danish i.e. the Petitioners herein came there and they also
assaulted the complainant with wooden log. When the friend of complainant
by name Rehman intervened and the fight stop. Thereafter Complainant –
Respondent No.2 Ayaz Shaikh lodged FIR being C R No.145 of 2020 with
Shantinagar Police Station for the offence u/section 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition
No.580 of 2021.

¶38

5The case of the complainant – Respondent No.2 – Danish
Shabiuddin Shaikh in Criminal Writ Petition No.592 of 2021 is that, the
complainant was having habit of drinking and he used to drink with Petitioner
– Ayaz Shaikh. On the date of alleged incident, the complainant was drinking
alone. The Petitioner Ayaz Shaikh asked him that why he did not join him for
drinking. As the complainant avoided to give reply, the Petitioner got annoyed
and started giving fist blows to the complaint. When the complainant tried to

¶39

3 of 10

¶40

lgc

¶41

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶42

retaliate, the Petitioner removed cutter like weapon and gave blows on the
body of complainant. At that time the friend of the Petitioner by name Nissar
came there and gave blows to the complainant. The complainant after
received injuries started shouting therefore both of them ran away from the
spot. Thereafter Complainant – Respondent No.2 Danish Shaikh lodged FIR
being C R No.143 of 2020 with Shantinagar Police Station for the offence
u/section 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner in
Criminal Writ Petition No.592 of 2021.

¶43

6The Petitioners in both the Petitions have stated that the
complaints were lodged by them against each other out of misunderstanding as
they are friends. It is also stated in the Petitions that the matter between
themselves is now settled by them amicably.

¶44

7The learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that
the complaints lodged by both the parties against each other are cross
complaints and, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between
themselves. It is also submitted that both the parties do not want to prosecute
the matter against each other and both the parties agreed to withdraw the
cases pending against each other. The learned counsel appearing for both the
parties jointly submit that it is the voluntary act of both the complainants to
arrive at settlement and give consent for quashing the impugned FIRs filed by

¶45

4 of 10

¶46

lgc

¶47

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶48

them against each other.

¶49

8When these Petitions were on board on 16/03/2021 for hearing,
both the contesting Respondents i.e. Respondent No.2 – Ayaz Shaikh in
Criminal Writ Petition No.580 of 2021, and Respondent No. 2- Danish Shaikh
in Criminal Writ Petition No.592 of 2021 were present. They were identified
by their respective advocates. When we interacted with them, they stated that
it is their voluntary act to settle the dispute and they jointly prayed for
quashing the impugned FIRs. Both of them have filed their respective affidavits
in these Petitions.

¶50

9 Respondent No.2 – Ayaz Shaikh, who lodged the FIR being CR

¶51

No.145 of 2020, has stated in his affidavit as under :-

¶52

“I say that I have lodge an FIR against Shabir Rehman
Ahmed Shaikh and Rajiuddin @ Danish Shabuddin
Shaikh vide C R No.145 of 202 at Shantinagar Police
Station on 20/2/2020 for the offence punishable u/s
324, 326, 504, 506, 34 of IPC.

¶53

I say that I have lodge said FIR out of misunderstanding
and now I have amicably settled the matter with the
Petitioner.

¶54

I say that now I am having no complaints against the

¶55

5 of 10

¶56

lgc

¶57

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶58

Petitioner and I have no objection for quashing an FIR
against the Petitioner lodge by me vide C R No.145 of
2020.

¶59

10 Respondent No.2 – Rajiuddin @ Danish Shabuddin Shaikh, who

¶60

lodged the FIR being CR No.143 of 2020, has stated in his affidavit as under :-

¶61

“I say that I have lodge an FIR against Ayaz Ahmed
Shaikh vide C R No.143 of 202 at Shantinagar Police
Station on 20/2/2020 for the offence punishable u/s
324, 504, 34 of IPC.

¶62

I say that I have lodge said FIR out of misunderstanding
and now I have amicably settled the matter with the
Petitioner.

¶63

I say that now I am having no complaints against the
Petitioner and I have no objection for quashing an FIR
against the Petitioner lodge by me vide C R No.143 of
2020.

¶64

11In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation in the impugned
FIRs i.e. FIR No.143 of 2020 and 145 of 2020 registered with Shantinagar
Police Station, Bhiwandi. In the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2 Ayaz Shaikh
being CR No.145 of 2020, offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code
is mentioned. However, there is no material placed on record to show that the

¶65

6 of 10

¶66

lgc

¶67

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶68

accused has used sharp weapon. In fact, there was a sudden fight without
premeditation. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 326 of the Indian Penal
Code are not attracted.

¶69

12The 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.

¶70

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶71

7 of 10

¶72

lgc

¶73

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶74

13In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the both the impugned FIRs are the crossed complaints filed by the
contesting Respondents against each other and they are not going to support
the allegations made by them in their respective FIRs and further continuation
of investigation in both theFIRs would tantamount to abuse of the process of
the Court. Since both the contesting Respondents by way of filing their
respective affidavits have clearly stated that they are not interested to pursue
the allegations made in the impugned FIRs against each other, the chances of
conviction of the Petitioners in both the Petitions would be bleak and remote.

¶75

14It is pertinent to note at this stage that though the parties herein
have resolved/settled their dispute between them and approached this Court
for quashing of the FIRs lodged by them against each other, we deem it
appropriate to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on
both the Complaints i.e. the contesting Respondent No.2 in both the Petitions.
Accordingly we direct both the Contesting Respondent No.2 in both the
Petitions i.e. the First Informants to deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) each with the Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai within two
weeks from today in the account number given herein below.

¶76

Name of Bank of Account : Children Aid Soc Donation

¶77

Bank Account No. :02370100005612
Bank Name : UCO Bank
Branch : Matunga Mumbai

¶78

8 of 10

¶79

lgc

¶80

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶81

IFS Code : UCBA0000237

¶82

In turn the Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai shall transfer the said costs for
betterment of the children to the New & Additional Children’s Home,
Mankhurd, Mumbai.

¶83

15For the reasons stated herein above, in order to secure the ends of
justice and to prevent further abuse of the process of the Court both the
Criminal Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed, and the accordingly the same
are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read thus :-

¶84

“Prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition No.580 of 2021

¶85

C.R. No.145 of 2020 registered at Shantinagar Police

¶86

Station for the offence u/s. 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside on any terms

¶87

and condition as this Court may deem fit and proper”

¶88

“Prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition No.592 of 2021

¶89

C.R. No.143 of 2020 registered at Shantinagar Police

¶90

Station for the offence u/s. 324, 504, r/w 34 of IPC may

¶91

kindly be quashed and set aside on any terms and
condition as this Court may deem fit and proper”

¶92

9 of 10

¶93

lgc

¶94

cri.wp-580.21&592.21.odt

¶95

16The contesting Respondent No.2 in both the Writ Petitions shall
deposit their respective costs within two weeks from today. Payment of
aforesaid costs is a condition precedent for allowing these Writ Petitions and
this order will take effect after depositing the amount of costs by the contesting
Respondent No.2.

¶96

17Rule in both the Criminal Writ Petitions is made absolute to the
above extent and both the Criminal Writ Petitions stand disposed of
accordingly.

¶97

18 List the Petition on 15/04/2021 under caption “For Compliance”

¶98

of deposit of costs.

¶99

[MANISH PITALE, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶100

10 of 10

¶101

lgc

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Rakesh Chandrakant Gurav Vs Manoj Dattaram Gurav and Anr.

Moulali Gafur Faras Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.