Bombay High Court
Sayyed Abdul Rashid S/O. Misbahuddin ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Gittikhadan Nagpur ... on 23 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:859
1 50revn16.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2024
APPLICANT : Sayyed Abdul Rashid s/o Misbahuddin
Sayyed, Aged about 36 years, Occupation:
Service, R/o Plot No. 117, near Idgaah,
Jafar Nagar, Nagpur-440013.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS 1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Gittikhadan,
Nagpur.
2. Ganesh s/o Angu Swamy,
Age 50 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Flat No. 202, Adnan Apartment,
Tent Line, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur 440001.
3. Amit Panchamsingh Bais,
Age 44 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Daal Olee No.2, Kamptee, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ravi R. Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Sneha Dhote, APP for non-applicant/State.
Mr. Bharat B. Mehadia, counsel for non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 23/01/2025
rkn
2 50revn16.2024.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30/12/2023
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-10, Nagpur, below Exhibit
10 in Sessions Case No. 595/2010 rejecting the application filed by
the applicant for discharge from the said case for the offence
under Sections 307, 294, and 506B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860; and Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act,
1959; and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The
applicant is constrained to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. As per the contention of the petitioner that on
16/10/2018, a first information report came to be lodged by non-
applicant No.2 alleging therein that, on 15/12/2018 at about
11.30 a.m., when he was in process of arranging food for his
relatives, attending marriage function in a private marriage hall,
one person by allegedly holding the collar of a waiter was abusing
rkn
3 50revn16.2024.odt
him, and when he allegedly tried to intervene in the same, the said
person allegedly abused him and thereafter, went inside the office
of the lodge, and from the alleged associate i.e. the present
petitioner brought the weapon looking like a pistol and was
proceeding towards him and in the meantime, his brother-in-law
namely Amit Bais caught hold of the said person, and at that time
he was saying that "I will see you". On the basis of the said report,
police have registered the crime. The investigation was carried out,
and the charge-sheet was filed. The applicant has filed the
application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5. During the pendency of this revision, they both
entered into the settlement. The written submissions on behalf of
the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 show that the non-applicant Nos. 2
and 3 had filed a complaint for offence committed under Sections
307, 294, 506-B, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
applicant on the basis of the incident occurred at 11.30 p.m. on
15/12/2018 at A.R.C. Lawn Gorewada. It is further submitted that
the accused No. 2, namely Mr. Abdul Rashid, the applicant, was
very well acquainted with the non-applicant No.2 from last 30
rkn
4 50revn16.2024.odt
years. When the non-applicant No.2 and the present applicant
were used to stay at Kamptee, there were good relations between
them. The applicant is a tooth technician by profession. The
involvement of the present applicant in the alleged crime is on the
basis of the information received. It is submitted that the
complainant does not want to proceed with the present applicant,
and they have settled the dispute.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who
submitted that in view of the reply filed by the non-applicant Nos.
2 and 3, the applicant be discharged and the proceedings be
quashed, in view of the settlement between them.
7. On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposed the
said contention on the ground that the offence under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable, and the provisions
of 325 IPC are also attracted against the present applicant. She
submitted that mere showing of the weapons and keeping the
complainant under the apprehension of death is also sufficient to
attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 320 of
the Cr.P.C., the offence is not compoundable, and therefore, it
cannot be permitted to compound. In view of that, the application
rkn
5 50revn16.2024.odt
deserves to be rejected.
8. As far as the contention of the learned APP that
offence is non-compoundable is concerned, is not disputed. This
aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan in Criminal Appeal No. 349
and 350/2019 [AIR 2019 SC 1296], wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court laid down the parameters and, by considering the law on the
point and the other decision of its case. On the point of
compounding the offence, and the powers conferred under Section
482, it is observed and held as under ;
a] That, the power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceeding for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the
Code can be exercised. Having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out
of matrimonial relationships or family disputes, had
been parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves.
b] Such power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involved heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
rkn
6 50revn16.2024.odt
nature and have a serious impact on society.
c] Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes 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.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that
offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms
Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crimes against society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the
society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482
of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the parties have
resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the
High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine whether incorporation of Section 307 of
rkn
7 50revn16.2024.odt
the Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or if the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which, if proved,
would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, the nature of
weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charges framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter
is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
para Nos. 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] should be
read harmoniously and as a whole and in the circumstances stated
here-in-above.
10. It is further held that while exercising the powers
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings
in respect of non-compoundable offence, which are private in
nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground
that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and
rkn
8 50revn16.2024.odt
the offender, the High Court is required to consider the
antecedents of the accused. The conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a
compromise, etc.
11. After careful analysis of the facts in the present case,
and in the light of the legal position as summarized above, I am of
the considered opinion that the incident which is narrated in the
First Information Report, wherein the role attributed to the present
applicant is that he has handed over the weapon-like pistol. The
statement of the non-applicant nos.2 and 3 before this Court
shows that the said contention was on the basis of the information
received by them.
12. Thus, the offence although serious, does not have a
serious impact of the society, it is a private dispute between the
parties. No injuries are sustained by the non-applicant No. 2. The
nature of the injury or injury itself is not there, and therefore, in
the light of the above observations, there is no hurdle to allow the
application by discharging the present applicant from the criminal
proceedings. In view of that, by using the power under Section 482
rkn
9 50revn16.2024.odt
of the Code, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the
criminal proceedings against the present applicant in connection
with crime No. 637/2018. In view of that, I proceed to pass the
following order.
a] The revision application is allowed.
b] The proceedings, i.e. crime No. 637/2018 dated
16/12/2018, which came to be registered
against the present applicant on the basis of the
complaint of the non-applicant No.2 is hereby
quashed against the present applicant, namely
Sayyed Abdul Rashid s/o Misbahuddin Sayyed.
c] The revision application is disposed of.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2025 10:59:07
