Firoz Khan S/Omushtak Khan And 7 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Patur ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3574 Bom

Judgment

                                                             apl139.22 1

                                   1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.139 OF 2022

1. Firoz Khan s/o Mushtak Khan,
Aged about 25 years, occupation : labour.

2. Asif Khan s/o Nasib Khan,
Aged about 38 years, occupation : labour.

3. Rashid Khan s/o Nasib Khan,
Aged about 28 years, occupation : labour.

4. Anwar Khan s/o Salabat Khan,
Aged about 36 years, occupation : labour.

5. Bismillaha Khan s/o Mushtak Khan,
Aged about 28 years, occupation : labour.

6. Nasir Khan s/o Hafizullah Khan,
Aged about 50 years, occupation : labour.

7. Arif Khan s/o Nasib Khan,
Aged about 32 years, occupation : labour.

All r/o Mominpura Patur, taluka Patur,
District Akola.

8. Chandu Shekuwale s/o Peeru Shekuwale,
Aged about 48 years, occupation service,
R/o Abrar Colony taluka Patur,
District Akola.                          ..... Applicants.

                           :: V E R S U S ::

The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Patur, District Akola. ..... Non-applicant.
===================================
Shri A.A.Syed, Counsel for Applicants.
Shri M.K.Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant/State.
===================================


                                                                 .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                             apl139.22 1

                                   2

CORAM       : V.M.DESHPANDE & AMIT B.BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 01, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Amit B.Borkar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel Shri A.A.Syed for applicants and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.K.Pathan for the non-

applicant/State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, applicant Nos.1 to 7, who are accused, and

applicant No.8, who is complainant, pray for quashing of criminal

proceeding arising out of Crime No.80/2013 pending before learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur as RCC No.191/2014 registered

with non-applicant-Patur Police Station, Akola for offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 395, 341, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The First Information Report came to be registered against

applicant Nos.1 to 7 with allegations that they threw chilly powder in

eyes of applicant No.8, spilled liquid on his private part, and also

applicant No.1 snatched Rs.20,000/- from pocket of applicant No.8.

Investigating agency carried out investigation and recorded statements

of eyewitnesses. After completion of investigation, the investigating

.....3/-

Judgment

apl139.22 1

agency filed chargesheet against applicant Nos.1 to 7.

4. During pendency of the proceeding, applicant Nos.1 to 7

and applicant No.8 arrived at an amicable settlement between them as

per a Compromise Deed. The said Compromise Deed is dated

24.11.2021. In the said Compromise Deed, it is stated that applicant

No.8 does not want continuation of the proceeding initiated by him

against applicant Nos.1 to 7. Further, it is also stated in the

Compromise Deed that registration of the First Information Report

against applicant Nos.1 to 7 was out of anger and no incident as stated

in the First Information Report was occurred. It is stated that applicant

No.8 and applicant Nos.1 to 7 have now resolved their dispute and

applicant No.8 has no objection against applicant Nos.1 to 7.

5. We have carefully scrutinized material on record. On

careful analysis of the First Information Report along with statements of

eyewitnesses, we are satisfied that prima facie ingredients of serious

offences are fulfilled.

6. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh

vs. State of Punjab, reported at (2014) AIR (SCW) 2065 has held that

offences involving moral depravity or other serious offences cannot be

permitted to be compounded as offences are against the society.

.....4/-

Judgment

apl139.22 1

7. In the present case, as the allegations in the FIR would

demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute between two

contesting parties. The case involves allegations of dacoity. If the

allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they

implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest.

Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private disputes but

implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime.

8. Having perused material against applicant Nos.1 to 7, we

are prima facie satisfied that allegations against applicant Nos.1 to 7

fulfill ingredients of serious offences like offence punishable under

Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the investigating

agency needs to be given an opportunity to prove the case in Trial. We,

therefore, find no merit in the application. The application is, therefore,

rejected and disposed of accordingly.

Rule stands discharged.

            JUDGE                                   JUDGE
                 Digitally signed
!! BRW !!        by BHUSHAN
                 RANA
BHUSHAN          WANKHEDE
RANA             Date:
WANKHEDE         2022.04.01
                 18:36:04
                 +0530                                               ...../-