Allowed

Sumit Basavraj Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2022APL/490/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application sought to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a minor motor vehicle accident. The High Court allowed the quashing after the respondent-accused provided hardship compensation and expressed no objection. The court ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000 to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund as a condition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2020 and C.C. No. 443 of 2020; Direction to applicant to pay Rs. 5,000 to Mumbai Police Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Sumit Basavraj Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

30-apl-490-22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 490 OF 2022

¶3

… Sumit Basavraj Patil Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Gurav Parkar for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. Mr. Shantanu V. Kadam for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 14 JULY 2022

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

. By this Application, the Applicant is praying for the following reliefs :

¶10

“(i) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet filed in FIR No.28 of 2020 registered with D.B. Marg Police Station;

¶11

(ii) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings being C.C. No.443 of 2020 registered with the Ld. 14^th Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon, Mumbai.”

Kanchan P Dhuri

1 / 3

30-apl-490-22.odt

This prayer is sought pursuant to the consent given by Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for Applicant and Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the FIR be quashed by consent of Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel submits that the fact situation is covered by law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab¹ and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another² .

¶16

Respondent No.2 filed an FIR stating that he is working as a driver with an individual owner. On 9 February 2020 he had parked the car on the side of a road. At that time, the car driven by the Applicant dashed the stationery vehicle from behind and because of which Respondent No.2 was injured and had to be taken to a hospital.

¶17

The Respondent No.2 through his Advocate has tendered an Affidavit stating that he has received an amount of Rs.25,000/from the Petitioner as hardship compensation and he has realized that the incident was an accident due to traffic situation. The Respondent No.2 has given his no objection for quashing the FIR against the Petitioner.

¶18

The Applicant is 20 year old student. The incident took place on the main road. The Respondent No.2 has himself stated that

¶19

1 2012(10)SCC 303

¶20

2 (2014)6 SCC 466

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 3

30-apl-490-22.odt

after the incident he was taken to the hospital by the Applicant and his friend, where he was treated. The Respondent No.2 has received minor injuries on his leg. The narration in the FIR shows that the incident was also minor and that there was no serious damage to any of the cars.

¶25

Considering the above and the fact that the Respondent No.2 has given consent for quashing the FIR and that the hardship compensation has also been given, we find that the law laid down in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra) deserves to be applied in the facts of the present case.

¶26

Considering the above facts, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii).

¶27

The Applicant is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund, A/C : 465010100008693, IFSC Code No. : UTIB0000465, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶28

The above order is condition upon this payment.

¶29

The Application is disposed of.

¶30

( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )

¶31

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN PRASHANT PRASHANT DHURI DHURI Date: 2022.07.16 13:24:56 +0530

¶32

Kanchan P Dhuri

¶33

3 / 3

Sumit Basavraj Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Basavraj Patil v. 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

Ujwal Anil Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Virendra Vishwakarma and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Pandharinath Kolhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Arjun Gite and Ors. Vs Jayashree Subhash Ranshevare and Anr.

Pusi Premsagar Sahani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anosh Keki Shroff Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.