Bombay High Court
Rahim Kayyum Sathkhed And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 December, 2020
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: S.S.Shinde, M.S.Karnik
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
Bhogale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION ST. NO. 3207 OF 2020
1. Rahim Kayyum Sathkhed
Age-25 Years, Occu.-Education,
R/at-Siddheshwar Peth, Mulla Baba Tekdi,
Solapur
At present Solapur District Jail
2. Akram Kayyum Sathkhed
Age-27 Years, Occu.-Labour,
R/at-113, Shukrawar Peth,
Near Mulla Baba Tekdi, Solapur
3. Mohammad Faisal Salar
Age-25 Years, Occu.-Labour
R/at-60 Siddheshwar Peth,
Near Chaman Shah Ali Tekdi, Solapur
4. Mohasin Abdul Rahim Salar
Age-36 Years, Occu.-Rickshaw Driver,
R/at-Behind Macca Masjid, House No.60,
Siddheshwar Peth, Solapur
5. Mohammad Saeed Abdul Rahim Salar @
Tepu Salar
Age-27 Years, Occu.-Labour,
R/at-60 Siddheshwar Peth, Solapur
1/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
6. Jasim Gafur Sayyad
Age-30 Years, Occu.-Rickshaw Driver,
R/at-Near Chaman Shah Tekdi,
Siddheshwar Peth, Solapur .. Applicants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
(Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Solapur Vide CR No.1255/2020)
2. Muddadsar Jainuddin Shaikh
Age-32 Years, Occu.-Rickshaw Driver,
R/at-C/o.-Mahboob Dala
Kurban Husain Nagar, Gurunanak Chawk,
Solapur .. Respondents
--------
Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Applicants.
Mr. Shailesh Chavan for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP a/w Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.
--------
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 15, 2020
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 22, 2020
JUDGMENT :(PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
2. This is an Application fled by the Applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2. The FIR is dated 09.08.2020. It is alleged that the Applicants armed with rods, hockey stick, iron pipe and sword came near the house of one Alim and at that time, the frst informant-Respondent No.2 intervened. He came to be assaulted with fsts and kicks. During the said incident, one of the Applicant viz. Applicant No.4- Mohasin Salar assaulted on the head of the frst informant with an iron rod. On the basis of these allegations an ofence came to be registered under Section 307, 143, 147, 149, 188, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act at the instance of the present Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that there was some misunderstanding and misconception about the facts which has since been resolved between the Applicants and the Respondent No.2. An afdavit has been fled by the Respondent No.2 saying that the said FIR was lodged on account of misunderstanding and misconception about the facts and now the said misunderstanding does not remain as all issues between the parties resolved. Respondent No.2 consents for quashing of the FIR registered against the Applicants. 3/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a diferent footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the ofences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the ofence arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the ofender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It has also held inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
1 2012 (10) SCC 303 4/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
5. No doubt the ofence under Section 307 of the IPC is a serious ofence. We therefore carefully perused the allegations in the FIR and also interacted with the Respondent No.2-the frst informant. The Respondent No.2 is identifed by his advocate. The Respondent No.2 stated that he does not wish to continue with the criminal prosecution. He stated that he was discharged from the hospital in one day and that he sufered a simple injury. The allegation in the FIR mentions about the role of the Applicant No.4 in the said assault on the Respondent No.2 with an iron rod. In view of the stand taken by Respondent No.2 and from the materials on record, we are satisfed that the injury sufered by Respondent No.2 was simple in nature and therefore taking into consideration these facts, the ingredients for attracting the ofence under Section 307 of the IPC are even otherwise found to be lacking.
6. Based on the interaction we had with Respondent No.2 and also in view of the averments made by him in the afdavit fled on his behalf in this Court, we are satisfed that the Respondent No.2 is not going to depose against the Applicants and the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak.
7. In our opinion, to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice the request made by 5/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt the parties deserves acceptance as continuation of the criminal prosecution in the present matter would be an exercise in futility. However, this is a ft case for imposing cost on the Applicants.
8. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(b) which reads thus :-
"b. The FIR No.1255/2020 and further proceeding arising out of the said FIR registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur for the ofences punishable U/s. 307, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 188, 504, 506 of IPC and U/s. 135 of Maharashtra Police Act and U/s. 25 of Arms Act, be quashed and set aside."
(ii) The Applicants to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Police Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today in the below mentioned account :-
Bank Name : Axis Bank Ltd.
Branch Name : Worli, Mumbai - 400 025.
Account Name : Police Welfare Fund
Account No. : 914010029005759
IFSC Code : UTIB0000060
(iii) Payment of cost is a condition precedent for
quashing of the FIR.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 6/7
97.cri.aplst.3207-20.odt
10. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.
11. This judgment will be digitally signed by the Personal Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by Rane Date:
2020.12.22 20:18:42 fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this judgment.
+0530
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
7/7