Advocates:
['KAKDE VISHAL SANJAY', 'COPY SERVED ON P P', '', 'SHAIKH MAZHAR A JAHAGIRDAR']

1 979 appln 2681-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

979 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2681 OF 2021

WITH APPLN/2909/2021

RIJWAN AHMED AALIM AHMED UUREAHI AND OTHERA

VERAUA

THE ATATE OF MAHARAAHTRA AND ANOTHER

...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ahaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar

APP for Respondent no.1-Atate: Mr. R. V. Dasalkar

Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Vishal A. Uakde

….

CORAM :

V. U. JADHAV AND

AANDIPUUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 9th MARCH, 2022.

....

P. C. :

1.

Heard fnally with consent of the parties at admission stage.

2.

The applicants in both the applicants are seeking quashing of

the FIR and the proceedings on the basis of settlement. Learned

counsel appearing for the applicants in both the applications

submit that in respect of the incident occurred on same date, time

and place, both the parties have lodged complaint against each

other and accordingly two separate crimes came to be registered

which is the subject matter of the criminal applications before us.

Learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the

2 979 appln 2681-21

parties are neighbourers since many years and the incident had

taken place on account of some trifing reasons. It is further

informed to us that due to intervention of the relatives and elderly

members of the society, the parties have amicably settled their

dispute. In both the matters, the original complainants have fled

affdavit in reply to that effect.

3.

We have also heard the learned APP for the respondent-Atate.

Learned APP submits that so far as the applicant No.1 Riwan

Ahmed in Criminal Application No. 2681 of 2021 is concerned,

there is one crime registered against him for the offence punishable

under Aection 354 of IPC. Learned APP submits that in Criminal

Application No. 2909 of 2021 so far as applicant no.1 Mohammad

Hussain is concerned, there is a crime registered against him for

the offence punishable under Aection 160 of IPC. However, the

learned APP has fairly accepted that the present two crimes are the

out come of the free fght between the neighbours on account of

some trifing reasons. Learned APP has also accepts that in both

the crimes the injured have sustained simple injury.

4.

We have carefully gone through the FIR in both the matters.

It appears that the applicants in both the applications are the

neighbourers and in respect of the incident occurred on same date,

3 979 appln 2681-21

time and place, they have fled complaint against each other and on

the basis of which respective crimes came to be registered with the

concerned police station. The alleged incident had taken place on

account of some trifing reason. There are no serious antecedents

as such. The injured persons have sustained minor injuries. It

further appears that due to intervention of the elderly persons of

the society, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

5.

In the case of Gian Aingh vs. Atate of Punjab and others,

reported in (2012) 10 ACC 303, in para 48 of the judgment the

Aupreme Court after referring the view expressed by the 5 judges

bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and also after

referring the guidelines framed by the said fve judges bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of the proceedings

on settlement in para 61 of the judgment, has made the 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 Aec