Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
Mrs. Farida Aslam Khan - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1936, 1937 of 2016
Decided on : 26-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. A.R. Maurya i/by ARM Legal
For the State : Mr. K.V. Saste, APP
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailendra Mishra with Sharad Rai
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised when the disputes are of individual and private nature, and the parties have amicably settled the disputes, especially when serious charges are unjustified due to the absence of requisite evidence.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Property Dispute - Indian Penal Code - Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452, 307, 336, 354 - The court quashed the FIRs registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code due to an amicable settlement between the parties. The court found that the disputes arising from the property were of individual and private nature, and therefore, it was appropriate to exercise the power of quashing the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions involved challenges to first information reports (FIRs) on the ground of settlement between the parties. The disputes arose from property-related issues, and both parties had cross cases registered against each other. The parties approached the court for quashing the proceedings by consent, citing an amicable settlement to put an end to the disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputes were of individual and private nature, and the parties had amicably settled the disputes. It noted that the FIRs involved exaggerated allegations and that the invocation of serious charges under the Indian Penal Code was unjustified due to the absence of requisite evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the settlement of property-related disputes and the quashing of FIRs due to an amicable settlement between the parties. The court also considered the exaggeration of allegations and the invocation of serious charges without sufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the disputes were of individual and private nature, and the parties had amicably settled the disputes. It also considered the unjustified invocation of serious charges under the Indian Penal Code due to the absence of requisite evidence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIRs registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, citing the individual and private nature of the disputes and the amicable settlement between the parties.
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for State. Mr. Shailendra Mishra and Mr. A.R. Maurya waive service for private Respondents respectively in these petitions.
2. Both the petitions involve connected issues and the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. The Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioners have challenged the first information reports (FIRs) on the ground that there has been settlement between both the parties, who had agreed to quash the criminal proceedings by consent of each other.
3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1936 of 2016 assails FIR bearing CR No. 28 of 2016 registered with Dindoshi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners are impleaded as accused in the said FIR which was registered at the instance of second Respondent.
4. Brief facts, as alleged in CR No. 28 of 2016, are as follows:
(a) The first informant is residing at Room No. 308, Ankur Building, Kanyapada, Goregaon (East), Mumbai along with her family since last five years. Since she had no premises of her own for the purpose of residence, the family was on the look out for the residential premises. They approached an estate agent Mr. Rana Singh for the said purpose;
(b) After interactions with the said estate agent, he represented that a premises viz Room No. 308, Ankur Building, ‘B’ Wing, Kanyapada, Goregaon (East), Mumbai is available and the said premises was shown to the complainant. He further represented that the premises belongs to his friend;
(c) The first informant then parted with an amount of Rs. 3.25 lakh towards the rent for the aforesaid premises with an understanding that the said amount will be returned back when they would vacate the said premises. The first informant and her family started occupying the said premises in August-2012. At that time Mr. Rana Singh had come with one person namely Aslam Shekh and intimated that he is the owner of the said room. The aforesaid amount was handed over to them and an agreement was executed on a stamp paper;
(d) In January-2015, Aslam Khan and his wife Farida Khan visited the complainant's house and threatened them for vacating the said room. Thereafter they repeatedly threatened the complainant and her family. In view of the said threats, a complaint was made to Dindoshi Police Station;
(e) On 12 January 2016, some persons entered into the room of the complainant and started assaulting her husband and daughter. One of them was Smt. Farida Khan. At that time, the Mangalsutra worn by the complainant was snatched by aforesaid lady. They also caused damage to the articles in the house. At that point of time, Farida Khan removed two bottles of phenyl from her purse and started consuming the same. One of the person accompanying her closed the doors from the outside and locked the same. The complainant's daughter gave a call to the Police Control Room and thereafter the Police visited the house and entered into the premises after breaking the lock. Hence, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1936 of 2016.
5. The Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2016 have sought to challenge the FIR registered against them vide CR No. 27 of 2016 registered at the instance of second Respondent therein. The said FIR was registered on 12 January 2016 for offences under Sections 307, 336, 354, 323, 506(II) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. Brief facts, as alleged in CR No. 27 of 2016, are as follows:
(a) The complainant Smt. Farida Khan is the resident of Gajanan Estate, Mohili Village, Saki Naka, Mumbai. She is residing at the aforesaid place along with her family. Prior to that she was occupying the premises at Ankur B
