Allowed

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2022WP/3037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed a Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 323, 326, and 34. The FIR arose from a physical assault by one partner against another during a business dispute. The Court found that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and continuing prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition allowed and Rule made absolute; FIR quashed in terms of prayer clause 'b'.

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

50.WP.3037.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 2021

¶4

UMESH SHRINIWAS

¶5

MALANI

¶6

Digitally signed by UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Date: 2022.02.21 09:52:14 +0530

¶7

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

***

¶13

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Dilip H. Shukla i/by Yash

¶14

Asso for the Petitioners.

¶15

 Mr. K. V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent – State.

¶16

 Ms. Kinnari i/by Mr. S.G. Shetty for Respondent No. 2. ***

¶17

 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 S.P. TAVADE, JJ.

¶18

 DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2022.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

1.Heard learned Counsel appearing for respective

¶21

parties.

¶22

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶23

consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective
parties, heard finally.

¶24

3.The Petitioners are before this court seeking

¶25

quashment of the FIR lodged at Taloja Police Station
for commission of offences punishable under Sections
323, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Respondent

Page 1 of 5

Umesh Malani

50.WP.3037.2021.doc

No. 2 who is the original complainant Shakil Shah is
supporting the prayer for quashment.

¶30

4.Perusal of report placed on record show that
the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 were the
partners in scrap business and were sharing equal
profit. Sometime before the date of incident, the
Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 decided to part
their ways. Perusal of the report further show that
though the Respondent No. 2 was helping the Petitioner
in his independent business venture, the Petitioner was
carrying some grudge against the Respondent No. 2. This
grudge resulted in the incident dated 23rd May, 2021
which took place in the late hours of the day i.e.
nearly 07.30 to 08.00 pm. As per the report, the
Petitioners reached on the spot on two vehicles, namely
1 baleno car and another a motorcycle. The Respondent
No. 2 was subjected to physical assault and suffered
injuries.

¶31

5. Learned APP made available the papers of investigation for our perusal. The perusal of those papers show that the Respondent No. 2 was subjected to medical treatment at MGM medical college and hospital Umesh Malani Page 2 of 5 of 5

¶32

Page 2 of 5 of 5

¶33

50.WP.3037.2021.doc

¶34

and had received nearly 7 injuries. Out of these 7
injuries, 2 were grievous hurts in the form of
fractures whereas other injuries were simple injuries.

¶35

6.Perusal of the document further show that post
lodgment of the report, better sense prevail over the
parties and due to intervention of elderly members of
the family and well-wishers, the Petitioners and the
Respondent No. 2 decided to resolve their dispute
amicably. It is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf
of Respondent No. 2 that the parties have decided to
bury past, come together and start living peacefully.
He further stated that there is no pressure or coercion
on him for the settlement.

¶36

7.It may not be out of place to refer to the
order of this Court dated 26th August, 2021. The
division bench of this Court had interacted with the
Respondent No. 2 who was present before this Court and
in that interaction the Respondent No. 2 submitted to
the Court that he is entering in the settlement
voluntarily and is giving his consent for quashing the
subject FIR.

Page 3 of 5

Umesh Malani

50.WP.3037.2021.doc

8.As per the petitioners, the parties have

¶41

settled the matter, as they have decided to keep
harmony between them to enable them to live with peace
and love. The compromise records that they have no
grudge against each other and the complainant has
specifically agreed that he has no objection if the FIR
in question is quashed. Further, both the parties have
undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against
each other and withdraw all the complaints pending
between the parties before the court. As they do not
intend to proceed with any criminal case against each
other, on that basis the submission of the petitioners
before the High Court was that the continuance of the
criminal proceedings in the aforesaid FIR will be a
futile exercise and mere wastage of precious time of
the court as well as investigating agencies.

¶42

9.In these circumstances, and especially, in
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
ofMadan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC
582], we find that no purpose would be served by
keeping the FIR alive, except burdening the Courts
which are already overburdened. We are of the view that

Page 4 of 5

Umesh Malani

50.WP.3037.2021.doc

in the backdrop of the aforestated fact-situation, the
continuation of prosecution in the instant case will
amount to abuse of the process of Court and therefore
it is in the fitness of things to quash the FIR in
order to secure the ends of justice. We are in
agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties that continuation
of criminal proceedings in the instant case will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end
and peace is restored.

¶47

10.Considering these facts, we are of the opinion

¶48

that the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has made
out a case for allowing the Petition. Accrodingly, the
Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’.

¶49

11.Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶50

(S.P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

Umesh Malani

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors. 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

Pranav Ashok Thaker and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Douglas Saldanha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Riaz Asgar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayyed Sabir Usman Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. Formaly Known as Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Waman Desale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.