Bombay High Court
Mrs Shirin Faizan Shaikh @ Shirin And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:219-DB
TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2025.01.04
16:26:15 +0530
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5231 OF 2024
1. Mr.Vijay Rambabu Sonkar,
Age 30, Occ- Service,
2. Mr.Deepakumar Rambabu Sonkar,
Age 32 Years, Occ- Service,
Both 1 & 2 Residing at : Room No. 132,
Sheetal Compound, Akashawani,
Near Gausiya Masjid, Gate No. 07,
Malwani Malad (west),
Maharashtra - 400 095.
3. Mr.Ranjit Rajput Sonkar,
Age 26 Years, Occ- Service,
4. Mr.Rohit Rajput Sonkar,
Age 24 Years, Occ- Service,
Both 3 & 4 Residing at: Sheetal Compound,
Abdul Hamid Road, Near Akashwani,
Rathodi Village, Malwani, Malad (West),
Mumbai 400 095 ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Malwani Police Station)
2. Mrs.Shirin Faizan Shaikh @ Shirin,
Age 28, Occ- Housewife,
Room No. 08, Sheetal Compound,
Gate No. 07, Near Nirankar Nagar,
Malwani Malad (West),
Mumbai - 400 0095 ... Respondents.
1
::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2025 22:37:59 :::
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5233 OF 2024
1. Mrs. Shirin Faizan Shaikh @ Shirin,
Age 28, Occ - Housewife,
Room No 08, Sheetal Compound,
Gate No 07, Near Nirankar Nagar,
Malwani Malad (West), Mumbai 400095.
2. Mrs. Heena Sameer Ansari @ Heena
Age 39 Years, Occ - Housewife
Residing at: Room No 132/10,
Sheetal Compound, Azmi Nagar,
Gate No 07, Near Nirankar Nagar,
Malwani Malad (west),
Maharashtra - 400017.
3. Mrs. Mehrunnisa Raheman Sayed @ Munni
Age 51 Years, Occ - Housewife
Residing at: Sheetal Compound,
Gate No 07, Behind Nirankar Nagar,
Akashwani, Malwani, Malad (West),
Mumbai 400095.
4. Mrs. Sajida Khatun Mohammed Imtiyaz Alam @Sajida
Age 42 Years, Occ - Housewife,
Residing at: Sheetal Compound,
Gate No 07, Behind Nirankar Nagar,
Akashwani, Malwani, Malad (West),
Mumbai 400095.
5. Mr. Zahid Ali Shaikh @ Zahid,
Age 50 Years, Occ - Business
Room No 01, Gani Chawl, Sheetal
Compound, Behind Gausiya Masjid,
Malwani Malad (West), Mumbai 400095.
6. Mr.Salman Raheman Sayed @ Salman
Age 33 Years, Occ - Service
Residing at: Room No 08, Sheetal Compound,
2
::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2025 22:37:59 :::
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
Gate No 07, Malwani Malad (West),
Mumbai 400095.
7. Mrs. Kamal Sultana Alamgeer Khan @ Kajal
Age 26 Years, Occ - Housewife
Residing at: Room No 08,
Plot No 132, Garib Nawaz Sagar,
W/F Soc, Azmi Nagar, Gate No 07,
Near Nirankar Nagar,
Malwani Malad (west), Maharashtra - 400017.
8. Mr. Sohail Raheman Sayed @ Sohail
Age 31 Years, Occ - Service
Residing at: Sheetal Compound,
Behind Nirankar Nagar, Akandivalik,
Gate No 07, Akashwani, Malwani,
Malad (West), Mumbai 400095.
9. Mrs. Kaushar Bano Shaikh @
Kausar Mohd Sufail Shaikh
Age 45 Years, Occ - Housewife,
Residing at: 132/20, Shital Compound,
Near Nirankar Nagar, Gate No 07,
Malwani, Malad (West),
Mumbai 400095.
10. Mrs. Sanad Mohd Sameer Ansari @ Sana
Age 17 Years, Occ - Student
Residing at: Jan Seva Chawl, Linking Road,
Behind Raghwendra Mandir Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Malwani Police Station)
2. Mrs. Sadhna Rahul Sonkar,
Age 27 years, Occ. Housewife,
Currently Residing at: Room No 32,
Sheetal Compound, Kadiya Chawl,
3
::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2025 22:37:59 :::
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
Gate No 07, Malwani, Malad (West)
Mumbai-400095 ... Respondents
...
Mr.Shane Illahi Turky with Mr.Karim Pathan for the Petitioners in WP
No. 5231 of 2024.
Mr.Fazlurrahman Shaikh for the Petitioners in WP No. 5233 of 2024.
Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 5231 of
2024.
Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 5233 of 2024.
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 2nd January, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5231 of 2024 have
approached this Court setting forth prayer clause 9 (a), which reads as
under :
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly issue writ of
certiorari and quash/ de-register the criminal
proceedings in C.R. No. 1349 of 2024 registered at
Malwani Police Station, Mumbai for offences
punishable u/s 115 (2), 352, 79 & 3 (5) of BNS
2023".
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates appearing for the parties and the learned APPs. With their
assistance, we have gone through the Petition paper-books and the record
available.
4. A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 1349 of 2024
was registered on 12th October, 2024 at 00:29 hours (00.29 am) with the
Malwani Police Station, Brihan Mumbai City.
5. The Informant has approached the Police Station and lodged
a complaint, leading to the invoking of Sections 115 (2), 352, 79 and 3
(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNS
2023).
6. The First Informant belonging to the Muslim community, is
a 27 years lady who has approached the said Police Station. The FIR
reveals that a religious function was performed by a community of
people belonging to the Hindu religion. On the occasion of the marriage
of the Complainant's brother, which was in the offing, the family
members of the Complainant were preparing to visit the market for
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
shopping purposes, on 11th October, 2024 between 5.00 pm to 5.30 pm.
A person, namely, Vijay, residing in the same lane, was sitting in the
pandal along with his mother. The Complainant approached the mother
of Vijay and uttered a sentence as " आं टी ये सब गलत हैं". This one simple
sentence evoked an unprecedented/unexpected reaction and Vijay, along
with Rohit, Ranjit and Deepchand, abused the Complainant in foul and
filthy language by using the words "रंडी साली मादरचोद". The
Complainant's brothers, namely, Salman Sayyed, Sahel Sayyed and
Shohaib Bhai and the mother of the Complainant, namely, Mehrunnisa
Sayyed, heard the abuses and came close to the Complainant. The
Accused assaulted the male members of the Complainant's relatives,
including the Complainant and her mother. Physical injuries were
suffered by Mehrunnisa and a friend of the Complainant, namely, Kamal
Sultana. This has led to the registering of an FIR.
7. It is alleged that the other side filed an FIR bearing No.
1348 of 2024, only to counter the first FIR.
8. The learned Advocates for the Petitioners in both these
Petitions, submit that now both the parties desire to live peacefully and
they have decided to settle the issue. They pray that the FIRs be quashed
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
and the criminal proceedings be brought to an end.
9. A copy of the affidavit in reply of the Complainant in
relation to the FIR bearing No. 1349 of 2024 ( page Nos. 27 to 32), dated
24th October, 2024 and a copy of the affidavit in reply of the
Complainant in FIR bearing No. 1348 of 2024 ( page Nos. 48 to 55),
dated 24th October, 2024 are placed on record. Reliance is placed on a
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.1, more specifically on the principles
culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court below paragraph 31, which
read as under :
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code is to be distinguished from the power which
lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent
power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
1 (2014) 6 SCC 466
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
(II)When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the
criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor
in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public
Servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between
the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in
the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore is to be generally treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone.
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC
in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury
is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the
guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later
case it would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties. At this
stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason
that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the
High Court can show benevolence in exercising its
powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment
of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is
almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code,
as in such cases the trial court would be in a position
to decide the case finally on merits and to come a
conclusion as to whether the offence under Section
307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage before
the High Court, mere compromise between the parties
would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been
convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved
under Section 307 1PC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.
10. The learned APPs have strenuously opposed these Petitions
contending that this issue/ crime would not fall within clause (IV) below
paragraph 31. The present case is not a criminal case arising out of a
commercial transaction or having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly
civil character or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes, which could be quashed when the parties come together. They
contend that on a simple sentence/utterance of the Complainant (in the
first FIR), led to a serious reaction by the Accused, who not only used
abusive and filthy language, but even went on to address the lady
members, including a Complainant, as prostitutes. The ladies were
beaten up and they have suffered injuries. This is a crime against the
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
society. They, therefore, submit that the scope of Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) should not be enlarged to include even
such a case.
11. Ms.Dabholkar, the learned APP, submits that the cross
complaint in the nature of FIR bearing No. 1348 of 2024, registered on
12th October, 2024 at 00:05 hours, indicates that an offence was allegedly
committed by the Complainant and her close relatives who had lodged
the first FIR. It is alleged that these Complainants had objected to the
Hindu community from performing religious ceremonies and insisted
that the loudspeaker should not be used. It is alleged that they climbed
up on the stage in the pandal and desecrated the statute of a deity and the
male members were beaten up with fists and kicks. There is an allegation
of injuries being suffered by these persons who lodged the second FIR.
The investigation is complete according to the learned APP. The learned
APP further submits that the charge-sheet is ready and would be filed
before the appropriate Court. It appears that the communal frenzy
between the two communities has led to the scuffle. Offences are clearly
made out in both the FIRs.
12. In view of the above, we find that the present case, in the
Trupti 9 & 10 common order.odt
light of Narinder Singh & Ors. (supra); Rajeev Kourav Versus Baisahab
and Others2; Kaptan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 3 and
State of Odisha Versus Pratima Mohanty and Others 4, needs to be tried
before the Competent Court. Specific contentions of offences are found
in both the FIRs. The process of law would take its own course through
the trial. We are not convinced that we should exercise our jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and ends of justice would not be met by
quashing both the FIRs.
13. Both these Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
14. Rule stands discharged.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
2 (2020) 3 SCC 317
3 (2021) 9 SCC 35
4 (2022) 16 SCC 703
