Bombay High Court: In a batch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners in the first petition had approached the Court to quash/de-register the criminal proceedings based on a First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 115(2), 352, 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that specific contentions of offences were made out in the FIRs and ends of justice would not be met by quashing the same.
Background
The complainant, a Muslim lady, and her family were preparing to visit the market on the day of the incident for her brother’s marriage. The accused was sitting with his mother in the pandal for a religious event being organised by a community of people belonging to Hindu religion .The complainant approached the accused’s mother and said that this was all wrong. Hearing this, the accused along with three others abused the complainant in foul and filthy language. The dispute eventually resulted in a physical altercation wherein the accused assaulted the male relatives of the complainant, her mother, and her friend. Aggrieved by this, the complainant lodged the above-mentioned FIR. Consequently, the accused filed a counter FIR.
Now, both parties desired to live peacefully and had decided to settle the issue. Thus, they sought quashing of the FIRs and the proceedings therein.
However, the State contended that the present case was 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 came together. Thus, it was contended that the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) should not be enlarged to include the present case.
Analysis
By placing reliance on Narinder Singh (supra), Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317, Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 9 SCC 35 and State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Court held that the present case needed to be tried before the competent Court and stated that the process of law would take its course through the trial.
The Court further held that it was not convinced to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and that the ends of justice would not be met by quashing the FIRs.
Holding this, the Court dismissed the petitions.
[Vijay Rambabu Sonkar v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5231 of 2024, decided on 02-01-2025]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Shane Illahi Turky, Karim Pathan, and Fazlurrahman Shaikh
For the respondent: APPs P.N. Dabholkar and R.M. Pethe
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
