Bombay High Court
Sajid S/O. Ansari And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 July, 2016
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
rpa 1/6 wp-1088-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1088 OF 2016
Sajid s/o. Ansari & Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
......
Mr. A. M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. U. V. Ugale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
ig ......
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
DATED : JULY 4, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) :
Rule.
2 Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3 Learned APP waives service for respondent no.1 -
State.
4 The Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of
rpa 2/6 wp-1088-16.doc
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and sought to challenge the criminal proceedings
which are subject matter of CC No.1424/PW/2015. The said
proceedings are arising out of C.R.No.217 of 2014 registered with
Chunabhatti police station on 15th September, 2014 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,149, 448, 504 and
506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). Petitioners are
impleaded as accused in the said First Information Report (for
short "FIR") which was registered at the instance of second
respondent.
5 The brief facts of the prosecution case as as follows:
(a) Second respondent has been residing in room no. 2, first
floor, 33/A, Salmabi Chawl, Qureshi Nagar, Kurla (West),
Mumbai - 70.
(b) It is alleged that the premises besides the room occupied by
second respondent were originally occupied by one Shafi
Ahmed. He was interested in disposing of the said
premises.
rpa 3/6 wp-1088-16.doc
(c) Second respondent intended to purchase another room and
hence she along with her husband entered into negotiation
with the vendor and purchased the premises for
consideration. They parted with the consideration amount
to the vendor.
(d) The landlord of the said property had issued rent receipts in
respect of the premises.
ig On 13 th August, 2014 when the
family members of second respondent were occupying the
said room, the accused entered into the said premises and
took over possession of the said premises. In view of the
aforesaid incident, second respondent lodged the FIR.
6 Petitioners have stated in the petition that the
petitioner no.3 had filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court
and necessary injunction has been granted in the said suit. It is
further stated that the conflict between the parties was with
regard to the tenancy right in respect to the said premises.
It was further stated that the matter has been settled between
the parties and they have filed the present petition for quashing
the said criminal proceedings.
rpa 4/6 wp-1088-16.doc
7 Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
have submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably
and they intend to put an end to the proceedings between them.
It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings may be
quashed with consent of both the parties on account of
settlement between them. Second respondent has tendered an
affidavit before this Court, which was affirmed on 4 th July, 2016.
It is stated that the dispute has been settled between her and the
petitioners and that she has no grievance of whatsoever nature
against the petitioners. It is also stated that the parties have
arrived to Consent Terms which is duly signed by them. It is
further stated that the matter have been amicably settled and she
has no objection if FIR No.217 of 2014 is quashed against all the
petitioners. She further stated that the present affidavit is being
filed giving consent for quashing the FIR bearing C.R.No.217 of
2014. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for
identification.
8 We have gone through the contents of the petition as
well as the charge sheet annexed to the petition. We have also
perused the affidavit tendered by second respondent. The dispute
relates to the right of parties in relation to the immovable
rpa 5/6 wp-1088-16.doc
property. The complainant and the accused have arrived at
amicable settlement and intend to put an end to the proceedings.
We are satisfied that the dispute is of private nature. Second
respondent has supported the prayer of the petitioners by
tendering an affidavit and giving her consent for quashing the
proceedings. In the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab &
Anr.1, the Apex Court has categorically observed that the High
Court can exercise of power of quashing the proceedings by
consent of the parties in the event of settlement being arrived at
between them in relation to the disputes which are private in
nature. Considering the circumstances stated herein above, we
are inclined to allow this petition.
9 Hence, We pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Rule is made absolute.
(ii) Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.1424/PW/2015,
pending before the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate 60th Court, Kurla, Mumbai which are
1(2012) 10 - SCC 303
rpa 6/6 wp-1088-16.doc
arising out of C.R.No.217 of 2014 registered
with Chunabhatti Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 448,
452, 504 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
