Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED ARIF @ RANU AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The FIR against the petitioners is unsustainable and is quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, accused in FIR No. 0531/2023 for offences under IPC sections 326, 324, 504, 506 and 34, sought quashal of the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, claiming they were the victims of a brawl that originated from a money‑transaction dispute at a police station. After the dispute was settled, the complainant and his siblings returned later that night and assaulted the petitioners near Lucky Hotel, using stones and bamboo sticks, causing grievous injuries to the petitioners while the complainant’s injuries were only simple. The court examined the FIR, the chargesheet, and a cross‑complaint, finding that the prosecution had not shown that the complainant suffered grievous hurt and that the petitioners were in fact attacked. Consequently, the FIR against the petitioners was deemed incongruous and unsustainable. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the FIR and disposing of the petition as prayed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR lodged against the petitioners for offences punishable under IPC sections 326, 324, 504, 506 and 34 can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the petitioners were the victims and the prosecution’s case is unsustainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 324, 326, 34, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash FIR
- assault
- grievous hurt
- cross complaint
- victim
- criminal procedure
Judgment
20. CRI WP-2966-23.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2023
Mohammed Arif @ Ranu & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ashif Husain & Ms. Naziya Shah, Advocates for Petitioners
Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for State
Ms. Anupama Patil, PSI, Pairavi, Sakinaka Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Husain, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms.
Gotal, learned APP for State.
2. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the present
crime. They have filed the present Petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and aside FIR No. 0531 of
2023 registered with Sakinaka Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 326, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Complainant and Petitioners had a money transaction issue
between them and were both present at the Police Station on the date
of incident i.e. on 15.05.2023. After the dispute between the parties
1 of 5
20. CRI WP-2966-23.odt
was resolved at the Police Station, the complainant and his siblings left
the place, but however they returned back at 11.00 p.m. and accosted
the Petitioners near Lucky Hotel in the same vicinity where the
Petitioners were having tea at that time. Another round of friction,
abuse, arguments and assault resulted and whatsoever came into the
hands of the parties including that of the Petitioners as well as
complainant from the roadside namely stones, bamboo stick etc were
used for assault on each other. In the said fight between the parties,
admittedly persons from both the sides received injuries. Insofar as
the Petitioners are concerned, they received grievous injuries which
are prima facie seen from the annexures and documents appended to
the Petition itself. However complaint was lodged by the other side
for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and other allied
sections for causing grievous hurt. Cross complaint was also lodged
against the first informant and his group members. It is seen that
when the investigation was made, it was revealed that both the sides
participated in the assault qua each other. This Court by order dated
06.09.2023 had stayed filing of the chargesheet despite which the
prosecution officer for the reasons known to the concerned
investigating officer (IO) and the police authorities filed the
chargesheet. Ultimately the concerned IO had to tender apology to
this Court which is documented in an order of this Court in the present
2 of 5
20. CRI WP-2966-23.odt
Petition itself. On 25.11.2025 all further steps with regard to the
chargesheet filed were also stayed.
4. Mr. Husain would submit that Petitioners - accused persons were
in fact the victims of assault which is prima facie seen from the
documents appended to the Petition itself. Insofar as injuries caused
to the complainant and his siblings are concerned, same were in fact
simple injuries. Learned APP confirms this fact in her usual fair
mindedness. Roadside stones and bamboo sticks lying around were
used by the parties from both sides to assault each other. After
perusing the material which is placed on record as also the contents of
the FIR as also chargesheet, I am of the opinion that insofar as the
Petitioners are concerned, it is they who were attacked by the
complainant and his siblings and therefore lodging of the offences
against the Petitioner is prima facie incongruous and not correct in
the facts and circumstances of the present case when he himself
suffered injuries which are seen from the record of the case. If at all
the offences were to be lodged, they ought to have been lodged
against both the sides. It is very crucial to note as to why the incident
happened. The motive for the incident is two fold. Firstly, resolution
of the civil dispute in the Police Station regarding the money
transaction was the precursor incident and in the second instance, case
of the complainant is that Petitioners had abused the sibling sister of
3 of 5
20. CRI WP-2966-23.odt
the complainant. It needs to be noted that it was the complainant and
his siblings who had returned back and had picked up the fight with
the Petitioners and it is not the other way around. Therefore the
charge on the Petitioners having abused the complainant's sister and
assaulted them cannot be sustained as the reason for the quarrel
especially in view of the fact that Petitioners themselves suffered
serious injuries on the date of the incident. Cross FIR to that effect is
appended at Exh. "E" at page No. 28. I have perused the same.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, I am of the
opinion that the complaint which is filed by the prosecution leaves
several questions unanswered and therefore cannot be held to be
sustainable for continuation. Considering that there is no material
placed on record by the prosecution either to justify that the
Complainant received grievous injuries, whereas the offence is
registered under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC and all other allied
sections which relate to grievous injuries, the same cannot be
sustained any further. In that view of the matter, arguable case is
made out by Mr. Husain for allowing the present Petition. Hence,
Petition is allowed and disposed in terms of prayer clause (A) which
reads thus:-
"A. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and any
appropriate writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 to quash and set aside FIR No.
0531 of 2023 registered with Sakinaka Police Station for offences
4 of 5
20. CRI WP-2966-23.odt
u/s. 326, 324, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on such
terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper."
6. Petition is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.08.20
19:16:29
+0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…