Bombay High Court
Zeeshan Vaeid Maniyar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 July, 2018
Bench: A.A. Sayed, V.L. Achliya
WP.2717, 2718.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2717 OF 2018
Altaf Kamar Razaak Sheikh & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Nitin Gangal for the Petitioners.
Mr.Deepak Thakare, APP for the State.
Mr. Manoj Shamrao Mohite for the Respondent No.2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2718 OF 2018
Zeeshan Vaeid Maniyar & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Manoj Shamrao Mohite for the Petitioners.
Mr.Deepak Thakare, APP for the State.
Mr. Nitin Gangal for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : A.A. SAYED AND
V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2018.
JUDGMENT :
1 The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2717 of 2018 has filed this Petition seeking following relief :
(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside C.R. No. 32/2018 filed by Respondent No.2 against Petitioners with Mokhada Police Station for the offences punishable u/s. 307, 336, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3, 25(1) of Arms Act, Section 37/1, (3)/135 of Bombay Police Act;Waghmare 1/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 :::
WP.2717, 2718.18.doc
(b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, all further proceedings in C.R. No.32/2018 filed by Respondent No.2 against Petitioners with Mokhada Police Station for the offences punishable u/s. 307, 336, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3, 25(1) of Arms Act, Section 37/1, (3)/135 of Bombay Police Act be stayed;
(c) Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b) above be granted;
(d) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be granted in favour of the Petitioners.
2 Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Counsel representing Respondent No.2 in respective Petitions and perused the case diary.
3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the cross complaints came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2- complainant in respective Petitions on account of incident dated 08.06.2018 on account of quarrel between children of two groups. The petty quarrel amongst the children led to fight amongst the relatives, friends and person belonging to their respective Community. On the basis of complaint dated 09.06.2018 lodged by Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2717 of 2018, the First Information Report came to be registered vide C.R. No.32/2018 with Waghmare 2/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc Police Station Mokhada against the Petitioners in said Petition u/Secs. 307, 336, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act and Section 37/1, (3) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.
4 On account of same incident, cross complaint came to be lodged by Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2718 of 2018. On the basis of said complaint lodged with Police Station Mokhada, District Palghar, the offences punishable u/Secs. 307, 336, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act and Section 37/1, (3) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act came to be registered against the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2718 of 2018 vide CR No. 33 of 2018. 5 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the Petitions submit that the incident occurred all of sudden and occurred on account of quarrel between the children of two sect of same community residing in same locality. It is submitted that though the offence under Section 307 is registered against the Petitioners prima facie no such offence is made out. It is pointed out that the injuries sustained by the injured are found to be simple in nature. It is further submitted that considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured at the most offence punishable under Sections 323 or 324 of the I.P.C. may be attracted against the Petitioner-accused. It is further submitted that Waghmare 3/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc the Petitioners as well as the complainant belongs to same community. The F.I.R. has been lodged out of misunderstanding between the parties. The elderly persons from the locality intervened in the matter and pacified the members of both the groups to settle the dispute so as to maintain peace and harmony in the locality. The Petitioners, the complainants and the injured persons involved in the incident have decided to amicably settle the matter and accordingly, they have filed these Petitions to quash the First Information Report lodged against each other.
6 Respondent No.2 i.e. complainant in both the Petitions have filed affidavit recording therein no objection to quash the criminal cases registered against each other.
7 We have perused the First Information Reports lodged as C.R. Nos.32/2018 as well as 33/2018 registered with Police Station, Mokhada, and the case diary of investigation of both the cases. On perusal of case diary of investigation conducted, we are of the view that a case is made out to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the Criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice. Perusal of the case diary reveals that prior to the incident dated 08.06.2018 leading to registration of C.R. Nos.32/2018 and 33/2018, quarrel had taken place between group of children residing in same locality. The petty quarrel between the children led to quarrel between two Waghmare 4/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc groups of same community but different sects residing in same locality. On the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2717 of 2018 the offences punishable u/Secs. 307, 336, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3, 25(1) of Indian Arms Act and Section 37/1, (3) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act came to be registered against the Petitioners in said Petition. Most of the accused are in the age group of 16 to 25 and some of them are women. In said incident, three persons from the group of Respondent No.2 sustained injuries. Perusal of the injury certificates of those injured reveals that all of them sustained simple injuries. Similarly, the perusal of case diary of First Information Report lodged as C.R. No.33 of 2018 at the instance of Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2718 of 2018 reveals that none of the injured sustained grievous injury. The injuries mentioned in injury certificates shown as simple injuries caused to injured persons. Thus, on the face of certificate of injuries issued by Medical Officer, no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is attracted against the accused mentioned in C.R. No.33/2018. Consider the injury certificates of injured persons issued by Medical Officer at the most offence u/s. 323 or 324 of I.P.C. may be attracted against the Petitioner-accused. The quarrel between two groups of children resulted into clash between the members of two sects of same community residing in same locality which resulted in lodging cross criminal complaints. Petitioners, the complainant and injured Waghmare 5/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc belong to same community though from different sects. The incident was occurred during the holy period of Ramzan. Due to intervention of elderly persons from the locality as well as relatives and friends of the Petitioners the parties have decided to amicably settle the dispute and bring peace and harmony in the locality.
8 Considering the overall facts of the case, the nature of accusation made in the First Information Report against each other and the injuries sustained by all the injured being simple in nature, we are of the view the parties be allowed to amicably settle the dispute. In view of settlement arrived at between the parties the chances of conviction are very bleak. In view of settlement between the parties no purpose would be served by allowing the continuation of proceeding. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceeding would be exercise in futility and wastage of time of the Court as well as prosecuting agency.
9 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have referred and relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065) in support of the submission that quashing of First Information Report cannot be declined merely for the reason the First Information Report incorporates an offence which is serious offence or offence against the society. Learned Counsel have invited our attention to following Waghmare 6/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc observation recorded in para 28 of said judgment :-
"28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties."
10 In the aforesaid case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Apex Court has held that only for the reason the First Information Report/ charge sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 of I.P.C. would not by itself cannot be a ground to reject the Petition /Application under Section 482 of the Court and refused to accept the settlement between the parties. It is Waghmare 7/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:02 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc observed that in such cases High Court should go by nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where injuries were inflicted and the nature of weapons used. If the Court is of the view that strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. then the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. We have discussed in the foregoing para that none of the injuries sustained by the injured found to be serious in nature so to attract the commission of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The injuries sustained by the injured are found to be simple in nature. 11 Thus, in the light of overall facts of the case, it is difficult to accept that offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is attracted in the matter. Prima facie no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. attracted against the accused. None of the injured was hospitalized and treated for the sustaining injury of nature endangering his/her life. The injured appears to be discharged immediately after medical examination. Most of the accused persons are young persons in the age group of 16 to 25 years. Some of the accused are women. Except one accused none of the accused have past record of involvement in commission of offences. Similarly, the accused against whom few cases shown to be registered cannot be termed as grave and serious in nature. In that view of the matter there is no impediment to refuse to quash Waghmare 8/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:03 ::: WP.2717, 2718.18.doc the proceeding by mutual consent. In the result, we allow the Petitions and pass the following order :-
O R D E R
(i) Both the Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
(ii) Each of the Petitioner, in both the Petitions, shall submit a Bond to the Investigation Officer, Mopada Police Station, Palghar stating that they will maintain peace in the area in future.
(iii) The Petitioners shall pay jointly a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in each of the Petition (aggregating to Rs.3 lakhs) to the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital.
(iv) In view of quashing of the FIRs, the Petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate with a copy of this order so as to enable the Magistrate to pass necessary orders to release those Petitioners who are in jail.
12 List the Petitions for compliance on 16 July 2018.
13 All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(V.L. ACHLIYA, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.) Waghmare 9/9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 01:10:03 :::