Bashir Ahmed Khan Abdul Rehman Khan Tadvi (withdrawn) v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The application is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 160
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 s. 135
Judgment
Mr. Avinash N. Patil Barhate, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. P. K. Lakhotia, APP for Respondent No.1 State. ….. ….. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 22nd JUNE 2022 PER COURT:-
This is an application for quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 171/2021 dated 10.6.2021 at Manwat police station for the offence punishable under Section 160 of IPC and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The application was originally filed by five applicants, however, by previous order, the application for applicant Nos. 1 to 3 was withdrawn and thus the application survives only for applicant Nos. 4 and 5. Applicant No.4 Munnawar Anwar Tadvi is mentioned as a young boy of 16 years of age and applicant No.5 Faizan Khan is mentioned as 17 years old boy. cran1611.21 -2-
Learned counsel for the applicants invited our attention to the copy of Aadhaar cards annexed to this application. The Aadhaar card of applicant No.4 mentions his year of birth as 2005, whereas the Aadhaar card of applicant No.5 Faizan mentions his date of birth as 11.6.2004. He contends that both of them are minors.
Learned A.P.P. submitted that charge-sheet against them is not yet filed and the investigating agency is still awaiting the documents relating to their dates of birth.
It appears that in any case, both of them are young boys. Therefore, we have considered this application based on the allegations made in the F.I.R.
The F.I.R. is lodged by Police Inspector Mr. Ramesh Narayan Swami. He has stated that on 8.6.2021 the Police Officer at Manwat police station was informed that a quarrel was going on at Ambegaon Naka. The informant and others went there. They saw that some scuffle was going on between two groups. On enquiry, they came to know that both the applicants, their relatives and others were going towards Railway Station in their four-wheeler. One Pappu Gaikwad was standing on the road. He had parked his motor cycle in front of cran1611.21 -3- their four-wheeler. Applicant No.1 Bashir alighted from the jeep and requested him to take aside his motor cycle. But Pappu did not do so and instead rushed towards him. The F.I.R. specifically mentions that applicant Faizan tried to mediate and stop further incident. However, there was some scuffle between the two groups. On this basis the F.I.R. is lodged. No role of instigation or actual assault is alleged against either of the applicants. In fact, the F.I.R. shows that applicant Faizan had tried to calm down both sides.
In this view of the matter, continuation of proceeding against the applicants would be an abuse of process of law. Both of them are young boys. They deserve to lead normal life without being stained with the investigation pending against them. Considering overall circumstances, we are satisfied that in this case the F.I.R. against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order:-
Operative part
O R D E R I. Criminal application is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. II. The F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 171 of 2021 registered with Manwat police station is quashed and set aside qua cran1611.21 -4- applicant No. 4 Munnawar Anwar Tadvi and applicant No. 5 Faizan Khan Mehbood Khan only. III. The application is disposed of. (BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) rlj/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 160; Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jun 2022. The bench was BHARAT P DESHPANDE, SARANG V KOTWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.