Bombay High Court
Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
criappln2246.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2246 OF 2016
1. Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman
age 75 years, occ. Retired
r/o Nehrunagar, Gut no. 3
Katkat Gate, Aurangabad.
2. Shaikh Irfan Haji Akbar
age 37 years, occ. Business
r/o Nehrunagar, Gut no. 3
Katkat Gate, Aurangabad.
3.
Altaf Khan Haji Akbar Khan
age 44 years, occ. Business
r/o Mahada Colony, Champa Chouk
near Nisarbhai Kirana Stores,
Aurangabad.
4. Firoz Khan Nasim Khan
age 34 years, occ. Business
r/o Sanjay nagar,
Near Water Tank,
Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin
age 44 years, occ. Business
r/o infront of Sadat Masjid
Roshan Gate,
Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar with Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, advocates for applicants.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for the State.
Mr. A.S. Ransingh, advocate for respondent no. 2.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:09:56 :::
criappln2246.16.doc
2
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2254 OF 2016
Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin
age 44 years, occ. Business
r/o infront of Sadat Masjid
Roshan Gate, Aurangabad. .. APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Firoz Khan Nasim Khan
age 34 years, occ. Business
r/o Sanjay Nagar,
Near Water Tank,
Aurangabad.
Mr.A.S. Ransing, advocate for applicant.
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for the State.
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar with Mr. Rupesh Agrawal, advocates for respondent no.
2.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 28th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. These are the applications seeking quashment of the proceedings
initiated in pursuance to lodging of First Information Report and
submission of charge-sheet to the Court and registration of Sessions Case
No. 56/2012 pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge
- 6, Aurangabad for offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 504, 506
r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, Regular Criminal Case No.
2059/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.
criappln2246.16.doc
3. Registration of both the crimes is the outcome of the cross
complaints presented by respective parties. Learned counsel representing
the complainant and accused inform that the parties h ave decided to settle
their dispute amicably out of the Court. In Criminal Application No.
2246/2016, charge levelled against applicant/accused is in respect of
offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal
of the injury certificate, it transpires that the injuries caused to the victim
are of simple nature. Similarly, in Criminal Application No. 2254/2016 also,
it transpires that injuries caused to the victim are not of serious nature.
Both the parties with a view to maintain harmonious relations with each
other have decided to settle their differences. Both the parties have
presented affidavits duly signed by the applicants / accused as well as
complainant. Learned counsel representing the parties have identified
accused and as a token thereof have put their signature on the affidavits.
Those are taken on record and marked 'X' and 'X1' for identification.
4. Since the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably, it is
more than clear that even if the trial proceeds, the same is not likely to
result in conviction. The charges levelled against accused are not of such a
nature those can be construed to be the offences against public peace. In
view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the mater of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 466, according to us, there shall not be any impediment in
criappln2246.16.doc
permitting the parties to enter into compromise and as a consequence
thereof, to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against accused as well
as proceeding of Sessions Case and Regular Criminal Case pending before
the respective Courts.
5. In view of above, both the criminal applications are allowed.
Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 56/2012 pending before the Additional
Sessions Judge - 6, Aurangabad for offence punishable under section 307,
323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as proceeding
of Regular Criminal Case No. 2059/2011 stand quashed. It is informed that
in both the matters the investigating agency has presented charge-sheet and
in one of the matters, charges are also framed. We are of the opinion that
the huge money and time is spent by the State for maintaining the
investigating agency. The applicants are instrumental in moving
investigating machinery which has conducted investigation and filed charge
sheet in both the offences. Since the applicants are instrumental in
requiring investigating agency to make efforts and spend valuable time in
aiding the complainants, they are liable to compensate the State at least as
a token of contribution for the inconvenience caused to the State machinery.
In this view of the matter, applicants shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in
each application, in this Court, within a period of two weeks from today.
Subject to condition of deposit of cost as directed above, criminal proceeding
shall be quashed. Rule made absolute.
( P. R. BORA ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
