Bombay High Court

Maheboob Khan S/O. Azmat Khan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 March, 2022

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                     1                      cran 863.20.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             942 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.863 OF 2020

      MAHEBOOB KHAN S/O. AZMAT KHAN PATHAN AND
                            OTHERS
                            VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                ...
       Advocate for Applicants :Mr. Shaikh Wajeed Ahmed
            APP for Respondents: Mrs. P VDiggikar
        Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Sameer Ahmed
                                ...
     CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

Dated: March 02, 2022 ...

PER COURT :-

1. Heard fnalll with consent at admission stage.

2. The applicants/original accused are seeking

quashing of the First Information Report bearing no.32

of 2020 registered with Purna police Station, District

Parbhani for the offence punishable under sections 323,

324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC r/w section

4(25) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also seeking quashing of the

proceedings bearing Special Case No.57 of 2020 pending

aaa/-

2 cran 863.20.odt

before the Sessions Court, Parbhani, on the ground that

the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged bl

respondent no.2, aforesaid crime came to be registered.

It has been alleged in the complaint that on 13.1.2020

the incident had taken place due to road rage. The

applicant/accused Samir Khan Gous Khan Pathan and

Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Rafk alongwith two others

have extended the beating to the informant and the

driver of the tipper on the ground that driver of the

tipper has driven the tipper in a rash manner. Even

thel have abused the informant bl referring his caste at

public place. It has been also alleged in the complaint

that thereafter those two accused persons (applicant

nos.4 and 5) also called some other persons from their

communitl and, accordingll, all the applicants before

us extended the beating to the informant and driver

Pawan, abused the informant bl referring his caste at

public place.

aaa/-

3 cran 863.20.odt

4. The learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2

submit that, both the parties are the residents of Purna

Taluka and thel have arrived at amicable settlement

due to intervention of the respectable persons, relatives

and mediators. Thel have decided to live peacefulll

within the village Purna, District Parbhani. Learned

counsel for respondent no.2 submit that respondent

no.2 alongwith injured Pawan Tukaram Sherkar has

fled affdavit to that effect. The informant and said

injured are not interested in prosecuting the case.

5. We have also heard the learned APP for the

respondent/State.

6. The learned APP, on instructions, submits that, so

far as the applicants are concerned, there are no

antecedents, however, there is one crime registered

against respondent no.2/informant.

7. We have carefulll gone through the allegations

made in the complaint. It appears that the alleged

aaa/-

4 cran 863.20.odt

incident had taken place without anl premeditation and

it is the out come of the road rage. The parties have

decided to settle their dispute amicabll due to

intervention of the respectable persons from the societl

and also due to intervention of the mediators and other

persons. It has also revealed during the investigation

and said fact is also reported bl the S.D.P.O. in his

report submitted to the Sessions Court that the

informant and said witness Pavan have not sustained

anl injuries in the alleged incident and even thel have

not taken anl treatment for anl of the injuries allegedll

sustained in the incident.

8. In a case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and

others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme

Court in para 48 of the judgment has referred the

guidelines framed bl A fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab

and Harlana High Court delivered in a case of

Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769

for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the

aaa/-

5 cran 863.20.odt

settlement. The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of

the judgment has made following observations :-

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutorl limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of anl Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R mal be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no categorl can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravitl of the crime.

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravitl or offences like murder, rape, dacoitl, etc. cannot be fttingll quashed even though the victim or victim's famill and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on societl. Similarll, anl compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bl public servants while working in that capacitl etc; cannot provide for anl basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingll and predominatingll civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularll the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonl relating to dowrl, etc. or the famill disputes where the wrong is basicalll private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved

aaa/-

6 cran 863.20.odt

their entire dispute. In this categorl of cases, High Court mal quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibilitl of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him bl not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrarl to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed

his reliance on a case Ramavatar Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC online SC 966,

wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the following

two questions.

First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'non-compoundable offence? If les, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act?

aaa/-

7 cran 863.20.odt

10. In paragraph no.10, the Supreme Court has

made the following observations :-

10. So far as the frst question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightll refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhla Pradesh, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surla Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affrmative, it has been clarifed that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinarl powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case mal be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingll entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

11. In the instant case, it appears that the parties

have arrived at amicable settlement, voluntarill. The

respondent no.2/informant and his companion driver

Pawan have not sustained anl injuries in the alleged

incident. It further appears that due to intervention of

the respectable persons from the societl, both the

aaa/-

8 cran 863.20.odt

parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Parties are

from the different religion and in order to maintain

peace thel have arrived at amicable settlement.

12. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid