Allowed

Salman S/O Salam Sufi and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra Throught Police Station Officer Ambazari Police Station Dist Nagpur and 1

Bombay HC7 May 2024APL/611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash an FIR for alleged abuse, manhandling and threats at a cafe after the parties amicably settled. The informant filed an affidavit stating he would not pursue prosecution; no charge-sheet was yet filed. The court found continuation of trial futile and exercised inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR, subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.598/2023 quashed and set aside; Rs.25,000/- cost to be deposited with High Court Bar Library, Nagpur within two weeks.

Salman S/O Salam Sufi and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

15.apl611.2024jud.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:5629-DB

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 611 OF 2024

¶5

Salman s/o Salam Sufi

¶6

Aged 29 about years, Occ. Business, R/o. Sufi Building, Pinjari Lane, Near Rajaram Library, Sitabuldi, Nagpur

¶7

Shivam s/o Avinash Yadav Aged about 25 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Tekdi Road, Gawali Pura, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

¶8

Abhishek s/o Gopichand Patil Aged about 23 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.43, Shrinagar Ingole Layout, ... Applicants Nagpur, Maharashtra.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ambazari, District – Nagpur.

¶11

Ashish Chhattu Yadav Aged about 23 years, Occ. Security Guard, R/o. C/o. Chhattu Yadav,

¶12

Qtr. No.749 Ward No.3, Hawa Mahel Walni, Rohana, Nagpur, Maharashtra.

¶13

... Non-applicants

¶14

Mr. Y.P. Bhelande, Advocate for applicants.

¶15

Ms. Trupti Udeshi, APP for non-applicant No.1.

¶16

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND SMT. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 07.05.2024

¶17

PAGE 1 OF 4

¶18

15.apl611.2024jud.odt

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER: Vinay Joshi,J)

¶20

Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

(2) Admit.

¶22

(3) This is an application seeking to quash FIR in Crime No.598/2023 registered with Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur, for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of settlement.

¶23

(4) The informant is serving as a Security Guard in a Cafe and restaurant namely Shosha Cafe. On 28.08.2023, around 12:30 midnight, while the informant was on duty, the applicants’ came to the cafe and insisted to enter in the cafe to celebrate their birthday. Since, the informant precluded them by stating that the time is over, all applicants abused him in filthy language, manhandled, gave threats and therefore, the report.

¶24

(5) It is brought to our notice that applicant No.1 –

¶25

Salman has also lodged a report against the cafe owner stating a different version of the incident. The said matter is also fixed today

¶26

PAGE 2 OF 4

¶27

15.apl611.2024jud.odt

¶28

wherein also parties have settled the matter. The applicants and informant are acquainted with each other and to maintain the peace, the matter has been amicably settled with the intervention of local leaders.

¶29

(6) The informant has filed a reply-cum-affidavit stating that the matter has been amicably settled and he do not go on with the prosecution. It is informed that yet the charge-sheet has not been filed. We had a re-look at the entire occurrence, wherein the allegations are restricted to the extent of abuses in filthy language and threats. Though it has the effect of causing a breach of peace, however, the incident cannot be termed as heinous or anti-social. Since the matter is settled, there is every possibility that the informant may not support to the prosecution, if the applicants are put on trial. In the circumstances, continuation of the trial amounts to exercise in futility. In view of above facts, we are inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction.

¶30

(7) Learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that applicants will deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost.

¶31

PAGE 3 OF 4

¶32

15.apl611.2024jud.odt

¶33

(8) In view of above, the application is allowed. We

¶34

hereby quash and set aside the FIR in Crime No.598/2023 registered with Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur, for the offence under Sections

¶35

294, 323, 506 (2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶36

(9) The applicants shall deposit the cost amount to the

¶37

High Court Bar Library, Nagpur, within two weeks from today.

¶38

(10) Stand over to 10.06.2024 for noting compliance.

¶39

[VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]

¶40

Prity

¶41

PAGE 4 OF 4

Salman S/O Salam Sufi and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra Throught Police Station Officer Ambazari Police Station Dist Nagpur and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman S/O Salam Sufi and 2 Others v. State of Maharashtra Throught Police Station Officer Ambazari Police Station Dist Nagpur and 1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nakir Khan Ahmad Khan Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.So. in Charge Police Station Akola and Another

Parmanand S/O Wamanrao Shende and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Police Station Officer Ps Ramtek, Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur and Anr.

Ankit Shivbaran Shahu Vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati Dist.Amravati and Another

Mangesh S/O Vasudeo Mundekar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mouda Dist.Nagpur

Shrikant Prabhakar Shingru and Another. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Samudrapur, Tah. Samudrapur, Dist. Wardha and Another.

Mohammed Tohid S/O Haji Hanif Jada Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Bhiwapur, Tah. Bhiwapur, Dist. Nagpur and Anothr