- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Parvez Jilani Shaikh And Another Petitioners v. State Of Maharashtra & Another S
Factual and Procedural Background
The Petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash Case No. 3160 of 2015 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra. The case originated from FIR CR No. 429 of 2015 registered at Khar Police Station by Respondent No. 2, alleging offences under sections 385 and 451 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The parties have amicably settled their dispute, confirmed by a joint statement and an affidavit from Respondent No. 2, who expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Court, however, examined the antecedents of the Petitioners and noted pending cases against Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioners expressed willingness to perform community service and pay costs as conditions precedent to quashing the FIR and proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and FIR in light of the amicable settlement between the parties.
- Whether the imposition of conditions such as community service and payment of costs is appropriate as a prerequisite for quashing the criminal case.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Petitioners have settled the dispute amicably with Respondent No. 2 and seek quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings by consent.
- The Petitioners have acknowledged past mistakes and expressed readiness to undertake community service as an act of repentance.
- The Petitioners request the Court to quash the proceedings in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, subject to conditions for community service and payment of costs.
Respondent No. 2's Position
- Respondent No. 2, appearing in person, confirmed the amicable settlement and filed an affidavit stating no grievances or claims against the Petitioners.
- He affirmed that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Madan Mohan Abbot v. State Of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] | Principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed when no useful purpose is served by continuing them, especially to avoid burdening overburdened courts. | The Court relied on this precedent to conclude that keeping the criminal proceedings pending would serve no purpose given the amicable settlement. |
| Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] | Principles guiding the quashing of criminal proceedings and the imposition of conditions such as community service and costs. | The Court applied this precedent to justify imposing conditions precedent (community service and payment of costs) before quashing the FIR and proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court recognized the amicable settlement between the parties as a significant factor favoring quashing the criminal proceedings. It noted the affidavit by Respondent No. 2 affirming no objection to quashing. Despite the settlement, the Court prudently examined the Petitioners' antecedents through a police report, revealing prior pending cases against Petitioner No. 1. Balancing these factors, the Court invoked the principles established by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot and Narinder Singh, which allow quashing of criminal proceedings to avoid unnecessary burden on courts and to serve justice effectively. However, to ensure accountability and public interest, the Court conditioned the quashing on the Petitioners undertaking community service and paying costs to a charitable institution. The Court also clarified that undertaking community service voluntarily does not amount to an admission of guilt.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
The Court quashed Criminal Case No. 3160 of 2015 and FIR No. 429 of 2015 subject to the Petitioners fulfilling specified conditions: rendering community service at B.A.R.C Hospital once weekly for three months and paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 each to the “Shanti Avedna Sadan” institution. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in automatic recall of the quashing order and dismissal of the petition without further reference. The decision directly affects the parties by terminating the criminal proceedings contingent on compliance, without creating any new legal precedent.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners have approached this Court with a request to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings of Case No. 3160 of 2015 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra. The said case is the result of FIR bearing CR No. 429 of 2015 registered with Khar Police Station at the instance of Respondent No. 2, for the offences punishable under sections 385 and 451 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Respondent No. 2 who is appearing in person and the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners made a joint statement that with the help and intervention of friends and well-wishers, the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, the instant petition is filed for quashing the above FIR/criminal proceedings, by consent of Respondent No. 2.
3. An Affidavit dated 21st October 2015 has been filed by Respondent No. 2 wherein he has stated that dispute between himself and the Petitioners has been settled amicably and they have decided to put an end to the disputes. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, he has stated that he has no grievances or claims against the Petitioners. He has further solemnly affirmed that he has no objection for quashing the FIR/proceedings in question.
4. Respondent No. 2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, he submitted that he has made the said affidavit on his own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. He has further confirmed that he has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings in question initiated by him against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 385 and 451 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Though parties had settled the matter out of Court and decided not to precipitate the matter further, as we had doubts about the antecedents of the Petitioners, we called upon learned APP to place on record police record of the Petitioners. Accordingly, APP has filed a report of the Senior Inspector of Police, Khar Police Station. The learned APP pointed out that there are three CRs pending against Petitioner No. 1. This statement was disputed by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. He submitted that in one CR, Petitioner No. 1 has already been discharged. He submitted that only one CR namely, CR No. 60 of 2013, which is for the offence punishable under section 307 is pending against Petitioner no. 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have realised their mistakes and in future they will not indulge in such activities. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are ready and willing to do community service as an act of repentance and as a condition precedent for quashing of the subject proceeding and FIR. He submitted that in view of the undertaking given by the Petitioners and settlement of disputes with Respondent No. 2, this Court may in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction be pleased to quash the subject proceedings.
6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State Of Punjab., [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.
7. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings. At the same time, we propose to direct the Petitioners to undertake some community service and pay cost to some Hospital or Institute as a condition precedent for grant of relief of quashment.
8. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition in following terms:
[1] Criminal Case No. 3160 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 Court, Bandra as well as FIR bearing No. 429 of 2015 registered with Khar Police Station is hereby quashed subject to the Petitioners rendering community service and paying costs as under:
[a] The Petitioners shall render community service at B.A.R.C Hospital, Anushakti Nagar once in a week for the period of three months. The Petitioners shall report to the Head of the BARC Hospital with a copy of this order. The Investigating Officer shall also forward a copy of this order to the said Hospital. The Head of the said Hospital shall allocate appropriate works/services to be performed/rendered by the Petitioners in his Hospital as part of community service. The Petitioners shall obtain certificates from the Head of the said Hospital of having rendered community service satisfactorily for the period of three months and place the same on the record of this petition. The quashment of FIR is subject to both the Petitioners producing the certificates from the said Hospital and placing the same on the record of this Court within 5 months from today.
[b] The Petitioners are also saddled with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- each, which shall be paid to the “Shanti Avedna Sadan” an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients.
[2] Failing to comply with conditions embodied in Clauses (a) and (b) above, the order quashing criminal proceeding and FIR shall stand recalled automatically and petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as nonest.
[3] It is clarified that the Petitioners voluntarily submitting before this Court to undertake community service shall not be taken as an admission of guilt by the Petitioners.
Alert