← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3767/2016others disposed off

Yashmin Sultan Somji v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2017-08-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

1 / 2 902-WP-3767-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3767 OF 2016 Yashmin Sultan Somji .... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents .......

• Mr.R.C. Kansara i/b. Kavita Karnad, Advocate for the Petitioner. • Mr.K.V. Saste, APP for the State/Respondent.

• Mr.Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 04th AUGUST, 2017.

P.C. :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned APP.

2.

The complainant herself has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing C.R.No.73/16, registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable u/s 324, 354, 504, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered against the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.

Nesarikar

2 / 2 902-WP-3767-16.odt 3.

It is the case of petitioner that pending investigation, the parties to the petition have settled their dispute amicably and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing the FIR by consent. 4.

The complainant/petitioner is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, she has no objection for quashing and setting aside the subject FIR.

5.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065), we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the FIR pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. 6.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed off as such.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)