Bombay High Court
Shaikh Raju Shaikh Rahimoddin And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 March, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
6890.16appln
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6695 OF 2016
1. Anis s/o Maheboob Pathan,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Teacher,
R/o. Lohagaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Yunus s/o Maheboob Pathan,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. As above.
3. Ayyub s/o Maheboob Pathan,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Teacher,
R/o. Bidkin, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Kauum s/o Maheboob Pathan,
Age : Major, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Lohagaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Arbaz s/o Yunus Pathan,
Age : 16 years, Minor u/g his
father Yunus s/o Maheboob Pathan
Occu. Education,
R/o. As above.
6. Imram s/o Kauum Pathan,
Age : 17 years, Minor u/g his
father Kauum s/o Maheboob Pathan
Occu. Education.
R/o. As above.
7. Mustkeem s/o Anis Pathan,
Age : 16 years, Minor u/g his
father Anis s/o Maheboob Pathan
Occu. Education.
R/o. As above.
...APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:28 :::
6890.16appln
-2-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Bidkin, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Shaikh Raju Rahimuddin
Age : 38 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o. Lohagaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
---
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. M.K. Deshpande
A.P.P. for respondent no.1 : Ms. P.V. Diggikar
Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr. S.S. Thombare
---
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6890 OF 2016
1. Shaikh Raju Shaikh Rahimoddin,
Age : 43 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Lohgaon, Tal. Paithan,
District Aurangabad.
2. Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Tamijoddin,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o As above.
3. Shaikh Tamijoddin Shaikh Imam,
Age : 55 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o As above.
4. Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Mannubhai,
Age : 28 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o As above.
5. Shaikh Shahrukh Shaikh Raju,
Age : 19 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o As above.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Bidkin,
Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:28 :::
6890.16appln
-3-
2. Kayyum S/o Mehhoob Pathan,
Age : 44 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Lohgaon, Tal. Paithan,
District Aurngabad.
..RESPONDENTS
---
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. S.S. Thombre
A.P.P. for respondent no.1 : Ms. P.V. Diggikar
Advocate for respondent no.2 : Mr. M.K. Deshpande
---
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 8th March, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th March, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Criminal Application No.6695 of 2016 is
filed with the following prayer :-
"B The Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue appropriate order for
quashing and setting aside the FIR
bearing No. 0136/2016 registered against
the applicants by Bidkin Police Station
for the offences punishable u/sec. 341,
143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323 of I.P.C."
Criminal Application No.6890 of 2016 is filed
with the following prayer :-
6890.16appln
"B This Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.
133/2016 registered with the Police
Station, Bidkin, Tal. Paithan, District
Aurangabad for an offence under section
143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323, 504 of Indian
Penal Code and for that purpose issue
necessary orders."
3. Pursuant to the notices issued to the
respondents, the settlement/compromise terms duly
signed and verified before the learned Registrar
(Judicial) have been placed on record. The parties
are identified by the respective Advocates
appearing for them. The para 2 of the said Terms of
Compromise read thus :-
Para 2 of the Settlement/Compromise Terms in
Criminal Application No.6695 of 2016:-
"2. That, during the pendency of the
application, the applicants and the
respondent no.2 (Orig. Complainant) as
well as Yakub S/o Tamijoddin Shaikh, R/o
Lohagaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad
have decided to settle the matter amicably
at the intervention of respected persons
from the village and thereafter, on
6890.16appln
23.10.2016 in the meeting of Tanta Mukti
Samiti of village Lohagaon, the present
applicants and the respondent no.2 as well
as injured person Yakub and others have
settled the matter as the applicants as
well as the respondent no.2 wanted to live
peacefully as all of them are having
immovable properties i.e. agricultural
lands at village Lohagaon. In view of the
meeting dated 23.10.2016, applicants and
the respondent no.2 have decided to settle
the matter."
Para 2 of the Settlement/Compromise Terms in
Criminal Application No.6890 of 2016:-
"2. That, during the pendency of the
application, the applicants and the
respondent no.2 (Orig. Complainant) as well
as Yunus S/o Maheboob Pathan, R/o Lohagaon,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad have decided
to settle the matter amicably at the
intervention of respected persons from the
village and thereafter, on 23.10.2016 in
the meeting of Tanta Mukti Samiti of
village Lohagaon, the present applicants
and the respondent no.2 as well as injured
person Yunus and others have settled the
matter as the applicants as well as the
6890.16appln
respondent no.2 wanted to live peacefully
as all of them are having immovable
properties i.e. agricultural lands at
village Lohagaon. In view of the meeting
dated 23.10.2016, applicants and the
respondent no.2 have decided to settle the
matter."
4. It is also stated in the said
Settlement/Compromise terms that, even the injured
Yakub S/o Tamijoddin Shaikh and Yunus S/o Maheboob
Pathan have no objection for quashing the first
information reports. It is stated in the affidavit
that, the incident happened in a spur of moment on
a trifle issue, and therefore, the applicants,
informants and injured witnesses agreed that, in
order to maintain the peace and harmony in village
Lohagaon and since all the applicants, informants
and injured witnesses are residing just adjacent to
each other, all of them have decided to settle the
dispute finally and amicably so as to maintain
peace and good relations.
5. We have interacted with the applicants and
informants in both the cases. On interaction, it is
6890.16appln
revealed that, it is voluntary acts of the
applicants, respondents and injured witnesses to
file the Settlement/Compromise Terms praying
therein for quashing first information reports.
6. We have carefully perused the
investigation papers, so as to find out the weapon
used by the accused and the injuries sustained by
the informants and injured witnesses. Upon careful
perusal of the injury certificates, it appears
that, the injuries are simple in nature. Therefore,
keeping in view the exposition of law by the
Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and
others V/s State of Punjab and another1, we are of
the opinion that, in order to prevent the abuse of
process of law, the first information reports
deserve to be quashed and set aside. The informants
or injured witnesses are not going to support the
allegations in the first information reports since
they have filed the Settlement/Compromise Terms
stating that, they do not want to proceed further
with the further proceedings based on the first
1 (2014) 6 SCC 466
6890.16appln
information reports, and therefore, the further
proceedings based upon such first information
reports would be exercise in futility and wastage
of valuable time of the investigation agency/Court.
7. In that view of the matter, both the
applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause
`B' and the same stand disposed of accordingly.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
...
SGA
