Bombay High Court
Umar Beg Vakil Beg And 8 Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Hiwarkhed ... on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
1 50apl1483.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1483/2022
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1481/2022
........
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1483/2022
1. Umar Beg Vakil Beg,
Aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Labour,
2. Akil Beg Gulshar Beg,
Aged about 58 yrs., Occ. Labour,
3. Yasin Beg Vakil Beg,
Aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Labour,
4. Wasim Beg Wakil Beg,
Aged about 38 yrs., Occ. Labour,
5. Nazim Beg Akil Beg,
Aged about 23 yrs., Occ. Labour,
6. Vakil Beg Gulshar Beg,
Aged about 58 yrs., Occ. Labour,
7. Shakil Beg Gulsher Beg,
Aged about 54 yrs., Occ. Labour,
8. Nasim Beg Vakil Beg,
Aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Labour,
9. Matin Beg Vakil Beg,
Aged about 26 yrs., Occ. Labour,
All R/o. Hiwarkhed, Tah. Telhara,
Dist. Akola.
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Hiwarkhed,
Dist. Akola
2 50apl1483.22.odt
2. Sheikh Riyaz Sheikh Riyasu,
Aged 34 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Vikas Maidan, Hiwarkhed,
Dist. Akola.
NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. Shahrukh Shah, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1481/2022
1. Abdul Sakib Abdul Asif,
Age 22 yrs., Occ. Labour,
2. Nazir Khan Shardul Khan,
Age 41 yrs., Occ. Labour,
3. Ansar Khan Samsher Khan,
Age 19 yrs., Occ. Labour,
4. Wasim Khan Nasim Khan,
Age 20 yrs., Occ. Labour,
5. Sheikh Riyaz Sheikh Riyasu,
Age 32 yrs., Occ. Labour,
6. Sheikh Amir Sheikh Zamir,
Age 30 yrs., Occ. Labour,
7. Taslim Khan Shamsher Khan
Age 20 yrs,
Applicant Nos. 1 to 7 R/o. Hiwarkhed,
Tah. Talhara, Dist. Akola.
APPLICANT
VERSUS
3 50apl1483.22.odt
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Hiwarkhed,
Dist. Akola.
2. Umar Baig Wakil Baig Mirza,
Aged 27 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Khobragade Plot, Chichari
Road, Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola.
NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shahrukh Shah, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15.03.2023
JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Both applications are seeking to quash respective First
Information Report ('FIR') and pending criminal cases on account of
settlement. Since these are the rival cases, for the sake of
convenience, we take them together for disposal.
4. Criminal Application No. 1481/2022 has been filed by
seven applicants seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 277/2018
registered with the Police Station Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148,
4 50apl1483.22.odt
149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 25 of the
Arms Act. The said crime was registered at the instance of report of
informant Umar Beg Mirza lodged on 28.11.2018. It is his
contention that on that day around 12.00 noon, on account of old
dispute while he was passing from the Tea Stall, all the applicants
arrived and assaulted him. So also, applicants also assaulted his
uncle Shakil Beg, brother Nasim Beg and one Yasin Beg, for which
report has been lodged.
5. Criminal Application No. 1483/2022 is filed by total nine
applicants. Similarly seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 276/2018
registered with the same Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act. The said crime
was registered at the instance of Sheikh Riyaz Sheikh Riyasu
alleging that at the same time and place, the applicants have
assaulted him as well as his father Sheikh Riyasu (dead) and brother
Sheikh Jamir and therefore, the report dated 28.11.2018.
6. In rival cases, the Police have completed investigation and
filed charge-sheet. Yet, the Trial Court has not framed charges in
both criminal proceedings. Both parties are resident of Village
Hiwarkhed, Tah. Telhara, Dist. Akola. There was no bitter enmity,
however on flimsy reason, incident occurred. Having regard to said
5 50apl1483.22.odt
aspect, with the mediation of villagers and old persons, both parties
have settled the differences to maintain peace in the small village.
Informant and injured of each crime have filed and verified reply
stating that the matter is settled and they do not want to prosecute
criminal cases.
7. Particularly in Crime No. 276/2018, informant Sheikh
Riyaz and injured Jamir are present before us who are identified by
Mr. Shahrukh Shah, learned counsel. It is informed that third
injured Riyasu who is father of informant Riyaz is no more. Both
informant and injured Jamir on inquiry, submitted that considering
the interest of both families, the matter is settled and they do not
want to prosecute criminal cases.
8. So far as Crime No. 277/2018 is concerned, informant
Umar Beg as well as injured Shakil Beg, Nasim Beg, Yasin Beg
identified by their Advocate Mr. M. N. Ali. On inquiry, they equally
stated that due to advise of villagers, the matter is settled and they
do not want to prosecute pending criminal cases.
9. In both cases, respective informant and injured have
pardoned the act of other side with a view to maintain peace in the
village. Both sides are residing in the proximity in small village and
all the time, they have to pass from the area of residence of other
side. In view of the interest of villagers, they have decided to settle
6 50apl1483.22.odt
the matter and not to prosecute with respective criminal cases.
10. In Crime No. 277/2018, we have gone through the
statements of injured and in particular injury certificates. In the
said crime, complainant Umar Beg has sustained only three
abrasions like is the case of Yasim. The injured Nasim sustained
only one laceration whilst injured Shakil sustained two lacerations
and one abrasion. All injuries are stated to be caused by hard and
blunt object. Having regard to the nature of injuries, they are not
caused by sharp aged weapon. In view of that even on prima facie
basis, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would
not attract.
11. In crime No. 276/2018, the informant Riyaz, his father
Riyasu and brother Jamir sustained injury. Informant Riyaz
sustained two contusions caused by hard and blunt object, injured
Jamir sustained laceration, contusion and abrasion similarly caused
by hard and blunt object. We are in agreement that these injuries
caused by hard and blunt object coupled with their statements
cannot make out the definite intention to cause death. The
applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is also in
serious doubt. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
would submit that merely because the Police have invoked the
provision of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it would not
7 50apl1483.22.odt
preclude this Court from exercising inherent powers vested under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, our
attention has been invited to the observations made in para 28 by
the Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1886 (S.C.) . Para 28 is
reproduced below:-
"28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though
it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take
the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court
cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever
there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical
commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties,
there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section
307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet
incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by
itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the
Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to
whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the
High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the
portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely
whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the
body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is
found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge
under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led
and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement
between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima
facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High
Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were
unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept
the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement
between the parties."
12. In the light of said decision as well as the principles laid
down therein, we have examined the entire material. Notably, the
matter has not traveled far as even charges are not framed in both
the cases. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and
particularly as no sharp aged weapon was used, we deem fit to
8 50apl1483.22.odt
exercise our inherent jurisdiction. More so, we are swayed by the
fact that both parties are staying in the small hamlet and would be
confronted with each other in day to day life. The settlement would
certainly further to maintain peace and harmony in the village.
Taking over all view of all above circumstances, we are of the
opinion to accept the settlement and to quash respective proceeding.
13. In view of above, both applications are allowed. We
hereby quash and set aside FIR in Crime No. 276/2018 registered
with the Police Station Hiwarkhed, Dist. Akola for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506
of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act
and related criminal case bearing Sessions Trial No. 13/2019
pending on the file of Sessions Court, Akot. We also quash and set
aside FIR in Crime No. 277/2018 registered with the same Police
Station for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323,
143, 147, 148, 149, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
4, 25 of the Arms Act along with related criminal case bearing
Sessions Trial No. 10/2019 pending on the file of Sessions Court,
Akot.
14. Both applications stands disposed of in above terms.
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA (BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE Gohane
GOHANE Date:
2023.03.17
16:30:35
+0530
