Allowed

Stanley Brian Francis Almeida v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2023WP/776/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 323 and 326 IPC based on amicable settlement. The High Court allowed the petition relying on precedent, quashing the proceedings subject to payment of costs to a legal library.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000 by the Petitioner and Rs.10,000 by Respondent No.2.

Stanley Brian Francis Almeida Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:24626-DB

¶2

wp 776.22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 2022

¶4

Stanley Brian Francis Almeida
Age 58 years
R/at: A/401, Kingston Tower,
Building No.22, Chunle Road,
Vasai(W), Umle, Palghar.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of the P.I.
Manikpur Police Station, Palghar
vide C.R. No.450/2021)

¶8

2. Rajesh Shridharan Chulliparmiballa
Age 45 years, Occ: Service,
Room No.B/101, Dream Tower 2,
Kaul Heritage City, Babhola,
Vasai, Dist. Palghar

¶9

 …
Respondents

¶10

Mr Aashish Satpute for Petitioner.
Mr J P Yagnik, APP for the State.

¶11

Mr Piyush Toshnival i/b Ashish Pawar for respondent No.2.
Mr T.D.Bhopale, PSI, Manikpur Police Station present.

¶12

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE &
 R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 7 JULY 2023

¶14

Page No. 1 of 5 ______________________________________________ 7 July 2023

¶15

wp 776.22.doc

¶16

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2.Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
Liberty to place on record the charge-sheet.

¶19

3.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the
consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the
parties.

¶20

4.The Petitioner has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash FIR
bearing C.R.No. 450 of 2021 dated 25 November 2021
registered at Manikpur Police Station, Palghar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian
Penal Code, and the proceedings arising therefrom. The
petitioner seeks quashing on the ground that he has amicably
settled the dispute with Respondent No.2.

¶21

5.The First Information Report was lodged at the instance
of Respondent No.2, who was a friend of the Petitioner. On

¶22

Page No. 2 of 5 ______________________________________________ 7 July 2023

¶23

wp 776.22.doc 24 November 2021, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 met. The Petitioner was a cook and he had requested Respondent No.2 to have food with him. In the meantime, both of them consumed liquor. At that time, suddenly the Petitioner picked up a liquor bottle and hit the informant on his head.

¶24

6.When this Criminal Writ Petition was placed before us,
learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, in
unison, submitted that parties have settled their dispute
amicably and that continuing the prosecution would serve no
purpose. According to them, prima facie, no case is made out
against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
326 of the Indian Penal Code. They submitted that this case
falls under the purview of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and
Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr.2

¶25

7.The record shows that Respondent No.2 has filed
consent affidavit on record stating therein that the incident
occurred due to spur of moment and there was no intention
on the part of Petitioner, who is his friend, to hit him and they
have amicably settled their dispute and do not want to

¶26

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶27

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶28

Page No. 3 of 5 ______________________________________________ 7 July 2023

¶29

wp 776.22.doc proceed with the matter. He is present before the Court and reiterated the contents of his affidavit and was identified by his counsel. Learned APP has verified his original Aadhar Card.

¶30

8.It reveals from the record, more particularly, the medical
certificate that all the injuries suffered by Respondent No.2
were simple in nature. The injury certificate records assault by
one unknown person and at the time of examination,
Respondent No.2 was found under the influence of alcohol.
Considering these aspects and the nature of allegations, the
situation at the spot, the relation between the parties,
amicable settlement between them, the no objection of
Respondent No.2 and the settled principle in law Gian Singh
and Narinder Singh (supra), we see no impediment in
allowing this Writ Petition.

¶31

9.Accordingly, we quash and set aside the FIR bearing
C.R. No. 450 of 2021, registered at Manikpur Police Station,
Palghar, against the Petitioner and the proceedings arising
therefrom, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- by the
Petitioner and Rs.10,000/- by Respondent No.2, to be paid to
the Kirtikar Law Library, Mumbai, within three weeks of this

¶32

Page No. 4 of 5 ______________________________________________ 7 July 2023

¶33

wp 776.22.doc

¶34

order being uploaded.

¶35

10. Rule is made absolute in these terms and this Petition is
disposed of subject to payment of costs as directed above.

¶36

R. N. LADDHA, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶37

Lata.S.Panjwani, P.S.

¶38

Page No. 5 of 5 ______________________________________________ 7 July 2023

Stanley Brian Francis Almeida v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stanley Brian Francis Almeida 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

Santaji Jaysing Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amar Arjun Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohidas Gulab Pashankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Haribhai Dodia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Sujeetkumar Jeetpratap Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Wasim Nisar Maste Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.