Allowed

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Kadar and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate Amravati and Another

Bombay HC25 Aug 2022APL/1110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC since the parties settled a private dispute regarding offences under IPC 294, 307, and 506, citing Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab. The quash is conditional upon payment of Rs. 25,000 costs by each applicant and the informer/complainant.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.378 of 2022 dated 16/07/2022 registered at Police Station Nagpuri Gate, Amravati is quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000 each way as costs.

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Kadar and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 4 905-APL 1110.2022

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1110 OF 2022 Shaikh Imran Shikh Kadar and others

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. A. P. Thakare, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent No.1 State.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.
DATE : 25/08/2022

¶9

At the outset, the learned counsel for the
applicants submits that inadvertently, the informer/
complainant was added as joint applicant in this
application, seeking quashing of First Information
Report (FIR). An oral prayer is made for transposing
the applicant No.4, as non-applicant No.2. In the
interest of justice, the prayer is granted.

¶10

2.It is brought to our notice that although
FIR for offences under Sections 294, 307, 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stood
registered on 16/07/2022, on an oral report
submitted by non-applicant No.2, the parties have

¶11

KOLHE

¶12

2 / 4 905-APL 1110.2022

¶13

now settled their dispute and they are jointly praying
for quashing of the FIR.

¶14

3.Attention of this Court was invited to
pages 5 and 6 wherein applicant No.1 and non-
applicant No.2 have sworn affidavits in support of the
application and the prayers made therein.

¶15

4.In the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, following the law laid down in the case of
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303,
held that non-compoundable offences could also be
quashed, provided that the Court was satisfied that
the grievance of the informer/complainant was based
on a private dispute between the parties and that if
there was material to indicate that no serious injury
was suffered by the victim. Even in a case where
offence under Section 307 of the IPC was alleged, the
High Court while exercising power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure could quash the
FIR upon the dispute between the parties being
settled.

¶16

5.In paragraphs 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.5 and
29.6 of the said judgment in the case of Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) the Hon’ble

¶17

KOLHE

¶18

3 / 4 905-APL 1110.2022

¶19

Supreme Court has laid down the principles
governing such cases.

¶20

6.Considering the facts brought to our
notice in the present case, we are satisfied that the
principles laid down in the said judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court are satisfied and that
therefore, the present application can be allowed.

¶21

7.But we find that in a number of cases, the
informer/complainant triggers the initiation of
criminal proceedings by causing registration of FIR
and thereafter, the informer and the accused settle
their inter se dispute, but in the process they increase
the workload of the already overworked police
machinery and also burden the dockets of Courts.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that appropriate
costs need to be imposed upon the applicants, as well
as non-applicant No.2 for granting the prayer in the
present application.

¶22

8.In view of the above, the application is
allowed and FIR No.378 of 2022 dated 16/07/2022
registered at Police Station Nagpuri Gate, Amravati is
quashed, subject to the applicants on the one hand
and non-applicant No.2 on the other, depositing
amounts of Rs.25000/- each towards costs with the

¶23

KOLHE

¶24

4 / 4 905-APL 1110.2022

¶25

Legal Services Sub Committee of this Court at Nagpur
Bench of the Bombay High Court.

¶26

9.The applicants and non-applicant No.2
shall place on record photo copies of their Aadhar
Card in this Court during the course of the day.

¶27

10.The amount of costs shall be deposited
within four weeks from today and in case of failure,
the order passed today shall stand recalled.

¶28

 JUDGE

¶29

 JUDGE

¶30

Digitally signed byRAVIKANT CHANDRAKANT KOLHE Signing Date:29.08.2022 10:41

¶31

KOLHE

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Kadar and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Kadar and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate 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

Umesh Rambhau Mhaturkar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dahihanda Dist.Akola and Another

Akash S/O Rajabal Yenurkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ballarsha Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Ramswaroop S/O Bindaprasad Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Kanhan, Tah. Parshiwani, Distt. Nagpur and Another

Nishant S/O Nanasaheb Wankhede Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar Amravati Dist.Amravati and Another

Manohar @ Kalya @ Manya S/O Shripat Panchbudhe Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Lakadganj, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur.

Shankarrao S/O Maruti Satpute and Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.O. P.S. Ner-Parsopant, Dist Yavatmal and Anr.