Allowed

Mahfooz Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and 3 Others v. the State Ofmha. Thr. Pso Ps Gadgenagar Dist.Amravati and Another

Bombay HC23 Aug 2022APL/1051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and charge sheet regarding offences under Sections 448, 468, 471, and 420 IPC. The court relied on a settlement between parties and principles from Gian Singh case, ordering the discharge of the applicants but imposing Rs. 25,000 costs on each to purchase books for the High Court library.

What did the court decide?

The Charge Sheet No.293/14 and consequent proceedings registered as R.C.C. No.1156/14 were quashed and set aside. Cost of Rs. 25,000 each to be deposited by applicants and non-applicant.

Mahfooz Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and 3 Others Vs the State… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

937 APL-1051-2022

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1051 OF 2022.

¶5

{Mahfooz Ali S/o. Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and Ors. ..Vrs.. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.}

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri P. W. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri S. M. Ukey, APP for the Non-Applicant No.1/State. Shri V. R. Hamand, Advocate for the Non-Applicant No.2.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.J.

¶9

DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2022 .

¶10

By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) and the charge-sheet arising out of criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the non-applicant no.2. Offences under Sections 448, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered against the applicants at the behest of the non-applicant no.2.

¶11

On the same grievance, civil proceedings were also initiated in the form of a suit for specific performance, wherein a counter claim was also filed.

¶12

It appears that during the pendency of the civil and criminal proceedings, including the present application, parties entered into settlement. In pursuance of the settlement, the suit as well as counter claim have been withdrawn. In terms of the settlement, today the

¶13

937 APL-1051-2022

¶14

¶15

non-applicant no.2, who is present in the Court, has submitted reply through his counsel. The same is taken on record. In the reply, it is stated that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and that therefore, the prayer made in the present application is supported by the non-applicant no.2.

¶16

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh ..Vrs.. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SC 303, has laid down that in certain cases even non compoundable offences could be quashed by the High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Offences have been categorized and it has been laid down that in disputes that are essentially of commercial or private nature leading to registration of criminal offences, upon the dispute being settled, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash such proceedings in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

¶17

It has also been laid down in the aforesaid judgment, followed in a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court that if the Court finds that no purpose would be served by allowing criminal proceedings to continue in the backdrop of the settlement of the dispute between the parties and that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, power ought to be exercised

¶18

937 APL-1051-2022

¶19

¶20

for quashing such criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

¶21

We are convinced that in view of the reply filed by the non-applicant no.2 and in terms of settlement placed on record, the present case falls within the four corners of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly the application deserves to be allowed.

¶22

But, another aspect of the matter cannot be ignored, that the civil and criminal proceedings stood initiated at the behest of non-applicant no.2, which have been contested by the applicants and the Court system as well as the investigating machinery have been burdened at their behest. They have settled their disputes eventually and now they have come before the Court for terminating the proceedings. We are of the opinion that appropriate costs must be imposed on parties.

¶23

The amount of costs ought to be utilized for a proper purpose.

¶24

In view of the above, while allowing the present application, we propose to impose appropriate costs.

¶25

The application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (i), which reads as follows :

¶26

“ (i) allow the present application and quash and set aside the Charge Sheet No.293/14 (Annexure-

¶27

937 APL-1051-2022

¶28

¶29

B) arising out of First Information Report being No.292/13 (Annexure-A) for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at police Station Gadge Nagar, Dist. Amravati and the consequent proceedings registered as R.C.C. No.1156/14 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati against the present applicants. ”

¶30

The applicants as well as non-applicant no.2 shall deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) each in the Account of Library Committee Government Pleader High Court Nagpur bearing no.129710100025875. The said amount shall be utilized for the purpose of buying books for the Government Pleaders Library.

¶31

It is made clear that if the amount of costs are not deposited within four weeks from today, the order passed today shall stand recalled.

¶32

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶33

TAMBE

¶34

Digitally Signed By:ASHISH ASHOKRAO TAMBE Personal Assistant to Hon'ble JUDGE Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:14

Mahfooz Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and 3 Others v. the State Ofmha. Thr. Pso Ps Gadgenagar Dist.Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahfooz Ali S/O Yusuf Ali Mirsahab and 3 Others v. the State Ofmha. Thr. Pso Ps Gadgenagar Dist.Amravati 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

Sunil Samadhan Dhandar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. of P.S. Kholapur, Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

Harish Chandumal Bajaj and 3 Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar, Amravati and 2 Others

Tarkesh S/O Bharat Mhalas and 2 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Washim, Distwashim and Another

Smt Shila Deorao Bhagat and Another Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Sadar Dist Nagpur and Another

S.D.P.L. and C.C.C.P.L. through Partner Sanjay Arvind Chiddarwar Vs Public Works Department, through Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

S.D.P.L. and C.C.C.P.L. through Partner Sanjay Arvind Chiddarwar Vs Public Works Department, through Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others