Bombay High Court
Mohd. Shabbir S/O Sk. Amir And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thruogh ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 APL.159.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NOS. 159/16 & 160/16.
1] CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 159 OF 2016
1] Mohd. Shabbir s/o Sk. Amir,
Aged about 70 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
2] Mohd. Mazhar s/o Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
3] Sk. Gani s/o Sk. Chand,
Aged about 52 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
4] Sk. Anis s/o Sk. Wazir,
Aged about 35 years, Occ.
Pressman/Agriculturist,
5] Sk. Gulab s/o Sk. Sarwar,
Aged about 65 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
6] Sk. Rafique s/o Sk. Chand,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Doctor,
7] Sk. Akbar s/o Sk. Gulab,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Labour,
8] Sk. Nayyum s/o Sk. Gulab,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Labour,
9] Sk. Asim s/o Sk. Biram,
Aged Major, Occ. Labour,
10] Sk. Sabir s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:33 :::
2 APL.159.16.odt
11] Sk. Biram s/o Sk. Sarwar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Labour,
12] Sk. Aslam s/o Sk. Biram,
Aged about 21 years, Occ. Labour,
13] Sk. Alim s/o Sk. Burhan,
Aged about 21 years, Occ. Labour,
14] Sk. Burhan s/o Sk. Sarwar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Labour,
15] Mohd. Noor @ Bablu s/o Sk. Wazir,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Service,
16] Sk. Javed s/o Sk. Usman,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Service,
17] Sk. Rahim s/o Sk. Gulab,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Labour,
18] Sk. Razzaque s/o Sk. Chand,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
19] Sk. Mazhar s/o Sk. Sultan,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
20] Sk. Mohsin s/o Sk. Sultan,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
21] Sk. Saddam s/o Sk. Razzaque,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student,
22] Sk. Amjad Nabi s/o Sk. Wazir,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Doctor,
23] Sk. Shahrukh s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged about 20 years, Occ. Student,
24] Sk. Sultan s/o Sk. Sarwar,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:33 :::
3 APL.159.16.odt
Aged about 60 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
25] Sk. Shoeb s/o Sk. Razzaque,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
26] Sk. Jamir s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
27] Sk. Zakir s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
28] Sk. Usman s/o Sk. Ismail,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
29] Mohd. Tawangar Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 38 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
30] Firojkhan Munirkhan,
Aged about 34 years, Occ.
Agriculturist.
All resident of Medshi, Tah. Malegaon,
District Washim. .... APPLICANTS.
....Versus....
The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Malegaon, Dist. Washim. ..... NON-APPLICANT
2] CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 160 OF 2016
1] Sheikh Gani s/o Sheikh Chand,
Aged about 52 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
2] Sk. Jamir s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:33 :::
4 APL.159.16.odt
3] Mohd. Shabbir s/o Sk. Amir,
Aged about 70 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
4] Muktar Kha Sajawar Kha Pathan,
Aged about 52 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
5] Matin Kha Muktar Kha Pathan,
Aged about 21 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
6] Sardarkhan Sajawarkhan Alias
Sattarkhan Pathan, Aged about 37
years, Occ. Agriculturist,
7] Mohd. Rahabar Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 38 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
8] Parwejkhan Sajawarkhan,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
9] Munirkhan Ismailkhan,
Aged about 69 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
10] Jawedkhan Munirkhan,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
11] Abdul Khalil Abdul Aziz,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
12] Mohd. Ajahar Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
13] Mohd. Majahar Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
14] Mohd. Tawangur Mohd. Shabbir,
Aged about 25 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:33 :::
5 APL.159.16.odt
15] Firojkhan Munirkhan,
Aged about 34 years, Occ.
Agriculturist,
16] Naved Khan Munir Khan,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
17] Abdul Rehman s/o Abdul Aziz,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
18] Mohd. Asfaque s/o Shk. Aamir,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
19] Mohsin Khan s/o Sajawar Khan,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
20] Rajdar Khan s/o Sajawar Khan,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
21] Sk. Zakir s/o Sk. Gani,
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
22] Sk. Razzaque s/o Sk. Chand,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Both resident of Medshi, Tah. Malegaon,
District Washim. .... APPLICANTS.
....Versus....
The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Malegaon, Dist. Washim. ..... NON-APPLICANT
Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. A.J. Pathak & Mr. V.A. Bramhe,
Advocates for applicants,
Mr. M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 4, 2016.
6 APL.159.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R. GAVAI, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2] The present two applications are filed by the applicants for
quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No. 23/2015
dated 5.2.2015 and No. 22/2015 of the same date. It appears that
during the meeting for nomination on the committee of the
Multipurpose Cooperative Society, on account of the death of one
Kisan Amruta Bahadure, there was a scuffle between two groups.
3] In Criminal Application No. 160/16 the applicant No.1
Sheikh Gani Sheikh Chand is the first informant in Crime No. 22/15,
whereas in Criminal Application No. 159/16 applicant Mohd. Shabbir
Sk. Amir is the first informant in Crime No. 23/15. The rest of the
applicants in both the applications are either the accused or the
injured persons.
4] Taking into consideration that the present case is a case
for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
we had requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get the
7 APL.159.16.odt
original record. The learned A.P.P. produced the charge-sheet which
is filed pursuant to F.I.R. No. 22/15. In so far as the other FIR is
concerned, the charge-sheet is yet to be filed. However, the learned
A.P.P. has placed before us the investigation papers.
5] The perusal of the FIR would itself reveal that the incident
is not an outcome of any premeditation. It appears that on account of
the nomination to the vacant post on the committee of the
Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, at the spur of the moment there
was a scuffle amongst the two groups which resulted in a free fight.
We have perused the nature of the injuries. Most of the injuries are
on account of the hard and blunt weapon.
6] All the applicants in both the petitions are residents of the
same village. They have resolved their internal disputes in order to
maintain the peace and harmony in their village. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others .vs. State of
Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 after referring to
its earlier judgment in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
has observed thus :-
"13. The question is as to whether offence under
8 APL.159.16.odt
Section 307 IPC falls within the aforesaid parameters.
First limb of this question is to reflect on the nature of the
offence. The charge against the accused in such cases is
that he had attempted to take the life of another person
(victim). On this touchstone, should we treat it a crime of
serious nature so as to fall in the category of heinous
crime, is the poser. Finding an answer to this question
becomes imperative as the philosophy and jurisprudence
of sentencing is based thereupon. If it is heinous crime of
serious nature then it has to be treated as a crime against
the society and not against the individual alone. Then it
becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the crime
doer. Even if there is a settlement/compromise between
the perpetrator of crime and the victim, that is of no
consequence."
After framing a question as to whether the powers under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code could also be exercised for
permitting a settlement amongst the parties for an offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court has observed
thus in para 29.6 :
"29.6 : Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in
the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual alone. However, the
High Court would not rest its decision merely because
9 APL.159.16.odt
there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of
injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding
factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High
Court can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings
whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the
High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties. At
this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future
relationship."
Similar view has been taken by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in
the case of Yogendra Yadav & others .vs. State of Jharkhand &
another reported in III (2014) CCR 426 (SC).
10 APL.159.16.odt
7] It could thus be seen that Their Lordships have held that
the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility
of the conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak
and in the former case the Court can refuse to accept the settlement
and quash the criminal proceedings, whereas in the later case it will
be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea for
compounding the offence due to settlement between the parties.
Their Lordships have further observed that while doing so the Court
can also take into consideration as to whether by the fact of
settlement between the parties, it would result in harmony between
them, which may improve their future relationships. As already
discussed hereinabove, the incident was outcome of a political
rivalry. There was no intention on the part of either of the parties to
commit the crime. The nature of the injuries are not that serious. In
any event, now since the parties have settled the matter, even if the
matter is permitted to go for trial, the witnesses would turn hostile and
as such, there would be no possibility of there being a conviction.
8] As it is, the Courts are flooded with old pending matter.
We find that no purpose would be served in forcing the trial upon the
parties, particularly when they have settled the matter and when
there is bleak possibility of securing a conviction. The first informants
11 APL.159.16.odt
in both the Criminal Applications are present in the Court and
reiterate about the settlement.
9] In the result, both the Criminal Applications are allowed.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in both the
applications.
JUDGE. J
UDGE.
J.
