Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 499 (BOM)

MOHSIN SK SAMAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2019-02-21

S.M.MODAK, SUNIL B.SHUKRE

body2019
JUDGMENT : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate for applicant Nos. 1 to 8, Shri V.S. Oberoi, learned counsel for applicant Nos. 9 & 10 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, APP for the non-applicant. 2. By this application, the applicants as well as the complainant are seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) registered against applicant Nos. 1 to 8. Upon a complaint filed by applicant No. 9 in respect of the alleged beating and issuing threats of dire consequences on the victim of crime, who is applicant No. 10, the FIR has been registered at Police Station, Patur, District - Akola, vide Crime No. 344 of 2018, for such offences as are punishable under Sections 365, 307 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3, 25 of the Arms Act. 3. In the complaint that was filed against applicant Nos. 1 to 8, it was alleged that these applicants had kidnapped for ransom the applicant No. 10 and also subjected him to beating as well as issued threats of dire consequences. Later on, applicant No. 10, victim of crime was released by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 by dropping him near Railway Station. It has been alleged that this was done only after applicant No. 10 managed to pay part of ransom to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/- to applicant Nos. 1 to 8 with the help of his son. The statement of applicant No. 10 was also recorded on the same day of incident, which was of 04.10.2018. Of course, that was after applicant No. 10 was allegedly let go by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 and that was in the evening hours. The statement of applicant No. 10 gives quite a detailed account of his ordeal of his getting kidnapped for ransom and subjected to ruthless beating and also getting issued threats on his life. It appears that later on, something happened between applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 9 and 10 on the other hand, which led to realization of applicant Nos. 9 and 10 that whatever was alleged by them was only out of some misunderstanding between applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 9 and 10 on the other hand, which led to realization of applicant Nos. 9 and 10 that whatever was alleged by them was only out of some misunderstanding between applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 9 and 10 on the other hand. The realization now, as it is seen from this application, has resulted into a settlement between these parties and that is how this application has been filed by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 as well as applicant Nos. 9 & 10 jointly. 4. This application was filed in December 2018 and on the first day of hearing, which was on 11.12.2018, notice was issued to the respondents. On that day, it was also directed that no coercive steps be taken against applicant Nos. 2 to 8 until further orders, they being not arrested by that time. However, applicant No. 1 was already behind the bars. It was after issuance of notice by this Court on 11.12.2018, that the Investigating Officer took further steps on urgent basis and on 20.12.2018, after receiving sanction for proceeding against applicant Nos. 1 to 8 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), (2)(4) of MCOC Act was also registered. 5. Now, this application has been strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that the allegations made against applicant Nos. 1 to 8 are of serious nature and that they fall within the realm of public law and more serious offences in the nature of offences committed by a Crime syndicate have also been registered against these applicant Nos. 1 to 8. It is also the contention of the non-applicant that all applicant Nos. 1 to 8 are hardcore criminals, having wide criminal antecedents. 6. At the outset, Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the prayer is only for quashing of those offences which have been registered under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. He submits that applicant Nos. 1 to 8 at this stage would not press for quashing of the offence under the provisions of MCOC Act, although, it is their contention that this offence would not survive if the substantive offences registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code do not survive. He submits that applicant Nos. 1 to 8 at this stage would not press for quashing of the offence under the provisions of MCOC Act, although, it is their contention that this offence would not survive if the substantive offences registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code do not survive. He further submits that the allegations in the FIR would themselves show that they do not relate to any of the ingredients essential for constituting the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and if this is considered along with the averments made in the joint application, the only conclusion that could be possible in this case would be that the dispute is of private nature and if any trial is allowed to proceed in the matter, it will only be an exercise in futility. He further submits that this is all the more so because of a candid admission given by applicant Nos. 9 and 10 regarding misunderstanding that they entertained before filing of the complaint. 7. The allegations made in the complaint as well as what emerges from the statement of applicant No. 10 recorded on 04.10.2018 would apparently indicate that this could not be a case involving just only a private dispute between the parties, rather a case which would cross the barriers of private wall amongst the parties. But, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, if one goes through the contentions and averments made in this joint application, we are of the considered view that the superficial impression that one gathers upon reading the complaint and the statements made by applicant Nos. 9 & 10 disappears and private contours and characteristics of the dispute become clearly visible. Now, both the complainant and her husband, who is the victim of crime, in unison state that there was some misunderstanding which occurred between them on the one hand and applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the other and this misunderstanding has its origin in the financial transactions between applicant No. 10 and applicant Nos. 1 to 8. They also submit jointly that the whole dispute between them has been settled amicably and to the satisfaction of each of them. This subsequent development is of removal of doubts, suspicion and misunderstanding carried by applicant Nos. 1 to 8. They also submit jointly that the whole dispute between them has been settled amicably and to the satisfaction of each of them. This subsequent development is of removal of doubts, suspicion and misunderstanding carried by applicant Nos. 9 & 10 due to the events that took place later on and which gave enough clarification to applicant Nos. 9 & 10, enabling them to see the things with clarity of vision. 8. In order to satisfy ourselves about the voluntary and truthful nature of settlement, we have also personally inquired with all the applicants including applicant Nos. 9 and 10 and we are satisfied that the amicable settlement that has indeed been reached between the parties is a result of voluntary agreement entered into between them and it is uninfluenced by any temptation or inducement or any external factor or coercion. It is significant to note at this juncture that though enough opportunity was available to the Investigating Officer to make an attempt at recording supplementary statement of the complainant (applicant No. 9) and the alleged victim (applicant No. 10), just to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the claim that they make now through this application, the Investigating Officer did not utilize it. So we find it difficult to discern any reason or rationale in the resistance of the non-applicant to this application. In these circumstances, it must be found that the element of public law now has been removed altogether from its root, as far as Indian Penal Code and Arms Act offences are concerned and the dispute between the parties would have to be viewed as confined to their private affair, which we do so. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, the allegations that were initially made by applicant Nos. 9 & 10 also did not refer to any of the acts which could be said to be prima facie amounting to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, the allegations that were initially made by applicant Nos. 9 & 10 also did not refer to any of the acts which could be said to be prima facie amounting to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. As regards the registration of MCOC Act, at this juncture, in view of the statement made by the learned Senior Advocate, we may not like to express our view one way or the other but so far as IPC and Arms Act offences are concerned and as stated earlier, we find that now any continuation of criminal proceedings in the matter would be an exercise in futility and if such proceedings in this case are allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of process of law (Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported at, (2014) 6 SCC 466 ). The agreement reached between the parties in this case, according to us, deserves to be respected and given effect to in law. 10. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the Criminal application. Application is allowed. The offences registered against applicant Nos. 1 to 8 under Sections 365, 307 and 386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act, in Crime No. 344 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in these terms.