{"id":175616,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-03T11:58:53","modified_gmt":"2016-05-03T06:28:53","slug":"mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Bilal Nazki, A.A. Kumbhakoni<\/div>\n
                                              1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.  410  OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    1) MOHD. SHOAIB HAIDER KHAN               )\n       aged 36 years, Occ.: Business,         )\n       residing at 72, Lalji Somji Building,  )\n       1st Floor, R\/No.4, Tandel Street (N),)\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n       Dongri, Bombay - 400 009.              )\n                             \n    2) SAYYAD EJAZ KADRI @ EJJU\n       SAYYAD SAHAB, Aged about 37,\n                                          )\n                                          )\n       Occ.: Business, residing at Swagat )\n       Unique, Plot No.302, Rora Complex,)\n                            \n       Meera Road (P), Thane.             )\n       (Presently in Jail at Thane)       )\n\n    3) MOHAMMED TALHA ABDUL                   )\n       \n\n       MUTALI ANSARI, aged about 33,          )\n       Occ. Business, residing at Natkar      )\n    \n\n\n\n       Complex, D-Wing, Room No.103,          )\n       Kausa- Mumbra, Dist.Thane.             )\n       (Presently in Jail at Thane.           )   ...    ...   Applicants. \n                                                  (Orig.Accused Nos.2 & 3)\n\n\n\n\n\n                  VERSUS\n\n    1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA             )\n       at the instance of Antop Hill Police )\n       Station, C.R. No.22\/2008.            )\n\n\n\n\n\n    2) MR. SALIM ABU SAMA KHAN                )\n       aged 36 years, residing at MHADA       )\n       colony, Transit Camp, Bldg. No.6A,     )\n       Room No.214, Antop Hill, Bombay        )\n       400 037.                               )   ...    ....     Respondents.\n\n    Mr. Iqbal Y. Solkar for the Applicants.\n    Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for the State.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::\n                                                2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                                       CORAM :   BILAL NAZKI  and\n                                                                \n                                                 A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                RESERVED ON : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.\n\n                                DELIVERED ON: 22ND OCTOBER, 2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                                              (At 4.30 p.m.in Court)\n\n    JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) : \n<\/pre>\n
           This   application   has   been   filed   to   quash   the   FIR   No.22\/2008<\/p>\n
    registered by the Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai, on 21st January, 2008<\/p>\n
    for the offences under Section 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The<\/p>\n
    main ground for quashing of FIR is that the complainant and the applicants<\/p>\n
    have settled the differences in between themselves.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     It may be stated at the outset that the criminal law is based on the<\/p>\n
    principles that the offences committed are against the State and also against<\/p>\n
    the victim. Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is such<\/p>\n
    that   most   of   the   serious   offences   are   not   compoundable,   less   serious<\/p>\n
    offences are compoundable with the permission of the court and some trivial<\/p>\n
    offences are compoundable at the behest of the complainant. If this scheme<\/p>\n
    is kept in mind, then it will be clear that even if the victims or the injured<\/p>\n
    are prepared to compromise the matter the State itself insists on conviction<\/p>\n
    and punishment because the offence is against the State. In any case the<\/p>\n
    applicants have not come to this court for compounding of the offence but<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    have come for quashing of the FIR against them.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    Now   the   principles   laid   down   by   the   Supreme   Court   are   so   well<\/p>\n
    enumerated that it will not be difficult to come to a conclusion whether in<\/p>\n
    the present case the FIR could be quashed or not. It may be remembered<\/p>\n
    that the criminal juris prudence in this country is that once an investigation<\/p>\n
    discloses commission of an offence it should reach to its normal conclusion<\/p>\n
    by way of a fair trial. We will not deal with many judgments which have<\/p>\n
    been delivered from the Privy Council till date. But we will only refer to the<\/p>\n
    principles which have been followed in State of Haryana and Ors. V\/s Ch.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhajan  Lal and others,
\n                              reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, because<\/p>\n
    the principles laid down in this judgment were in fact the principles which<\/p>\n
    had been laid prior to this judgment and were consolidated by this judgment<\/p>\n
    and even after 1992 these principles have been followed. In paragraph 108<\/p>\n
    of the judgment the following principles were laid down :\n<\/p>\n
         1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or
\n            the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
\n            accepted   in   their   entirety   do   not   prima   facie   constitute   any
\n            offence or make out a case against the accused. <\/p>\n
         2. Where   the  allegations  in   the  First  Information   Report   and
\n            other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
\n            a   cognizable   offence,   justifying   an   investigation   by   police
\n            officers   under   Section   156(1)   of   the   Code   except   under   an
\n            order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
\n            the Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
          3. Where   the   uncontroverted   allegations   made   in   the   FIR   or
\n             complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
\n             not  disclose  the  commission of   any  offence and  make  out  a<\/p>\n
             case against the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4. Where,   the   allegations   in   the   F.I.R.   do   not   constitute   a
\n             cognizable   offence   but   constitute   only   a   non-cognizable<\/p>\n
             offence,   no   investigation   is   permitted   by   a   police   officer
\n             without   an   order   of   a   Magistrate   as   contemplated   under
\n             Section 155(2) of the Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          5. Where the  allegations  made  in the FIR or complaint, are so
\n             absurd   and   inherently  improbable   on   the   basis   of   which   no<\/p>\n
             prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
\n             sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          6. Where  there  is  an  express  legal bar  engrafted  in any of  the
\n             provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
\n             criminal   proceeding   is   instituted)   to   the   institution   and
\n             continuance   of   the   proceedings   and\/or   where   there   is   a
\n             specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing<\/p>\n
             efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
\n             fide and\/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
\n             an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
\n             with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In as much as the scope of Section 320 of the Code is concerned, the<\/p>\n
    Constitution   Bench   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Union   Carbide<\/p>\n
    Corporation and others v\/s Union of India and others, reported in (1991)<\/p>\n
    4 SCC 585, has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
         “84. Learned   Attorney   General   said   that   Section   320   Criminal
\n         Procedure Code is “exhaustive of the circumstances and conditions
\n         under   which   composition   can   be   effected”   and   that   “the   courts
\n         cannot   go   beyond   a   test   laid   down   by   the   legislature   for<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
          determining   the   class   of   offences   that   are   compoundable   and
\n          substitute   one   of   their   own”.   Learned   Attorney   General   also   ref
\n          erred to the following passage in Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra<\/p>\n
          Hazarika.<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “If a person is charged with an offence, then unless there is some
\n               provision for composition of it the law must take its course and
\n               the   charge   enquired   into   resulting   either   in   conviction   or<\/p>\n
               acquittal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          He   said   that   “if   a   criminal   case   is   declared   to   be   non-
\n          compoundable, then it is against public policy to compound it, and
\n          any  agreement  to  that  end   is   wholly  void   in  law.”   (See   Majibar<\/p>\n
          Rahman v. Muktashed Hossein);  and submitted that court “cannot
\n          make   the   legal   which   the   law   condemns”.   Learned   Attorney<\/p>\n
          General stressed that the criminal case was subject matter of any
\n          compromise or settlement. There is some justification to say that
\n          the statutory prohibition against compounding of certain class of<\/p>\n
          serious offences, in which larger social interests and social  security
\n          are involved, is based on broader and fundamental considerations
\n          of public policy. But all statutory prohibitions need not necessarily
\n          partake of his quality. The attack on the power of the apex Court to
\n          quash   the   criminal   proceedings   under   Article   142(1)   is   ill-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          conceived. But the justification for its exercise is another matter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.     Now in the light of these principles and in the light of the application<\/p>\n
    itself it can be safely said that the FIR discloses cognizable offence having<\/p>\n
    been committed. The affidavit filed by the Assistant Police Inspector further<\/p>\n
    states that during the course of investigation, one chopper used in incident<\/p>\n
    was recovered at the instance of applicant No.1. The motor cycle used in the<\/p>\n
    incidence   belonged   to   Applicant   No.1.   Not   only   the   statement   of   the<\/p>\n
    complainant was recorded but the  statement of three eye witnesses were<\/p>\n
    also   recorded,   who   were   present   at   the   spot   of   incidence.   Even   if   it   is<\/p>\n
    accepted   that   the  applicants  and   the   complainants   have   resolved   their<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    disputes, even then there will be witnesses, who may testify during the trial<\/p>\n
    against  the  accused. Therefore,  we  cannot  scuttle  the  prosecution  at  this<\/p>\n
    stage.\n<\/p>\n
    5.       Learned Counsel for the applicants has relied on various judgments of<\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court in which the offences were allowed to be compounded,<\/p>\n
    being   the   case   of  Mahesh  Chand   and   another   v\/s   State   of   Rajasthan,<\/p>\n
    reported   in   1990   (Supp)   Supreme   Court   Cases   681.   This   was   an   appeal<\/p>\n
    pending before the Supreme Court where the conviction under Section 307<\/p>\n
    of the Indian Penal Code had been challenged and during the hearing of the<\/p>\n
    appeal the parties want ed to compound the offence. The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    noted, “The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted<\/p>\n
    by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC. This offence is not<\/p>\n
    compoundable under law. The parties, however, want to treat it as a special<\/p>\n
    case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.”  Then the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 held as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “3. We   gave   our   anxious  consideration  to   the  case  and
\n         also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the<\/p>\n
         offence.   After   examining   the   nature   of   the   case   and   the
\n         circumstances under which the offence was committed, it may be
\n         proper   that   the   trial   court   shall   permit   them   to   compound   the
\n         offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.   We, therefore, direct the trial Judge to accord permission to
\n         compound the offence, after giving an opportunity to the parties
\n         and after being satisfied with the compromise agreed upon. The<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
          connected   papers   filed   in   this   connection   before   this   Court   be
\n          transmitted to the trial court for the purpose. The parties, if they
\n          want, may file additional documents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Obviously the court considered this case to be a special case and exercised<\/p>\n
    the power under Article 141 of the  Constitution  of India and as such this<\/p>\n
    judgment  is not a precedent for this court to follow. It may also be noted<\/p>\n
    that while   the  Supreme   Court  passed  this  order the  whole  evidence was<\/p>\n
    before the Supreme Court as the accused were already convicted. We are<\/p>\n
    only dealing with the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     The case of  Madan Mohan Abbot v\/s State of Punjab, reported in<\/p>\n
    (2008)   4   Supreme   Court   Cases   582,   is   the   case   where   the   offence   was<\/p>\n
    allowed to  be  compounded  by  the  Supreme  Court on  the  ground  that  it<\/p>\n
    came to the following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
         “We notice from a reading of the FIR  and the other documents on
\n         record   that  the   dispute   was   purely  a   personal   one   between   two<\/p>\n
         contesting   parties   and   that   it   arose   out   of   extensive   business
\n         dealings  between   them   and   that   there   was   absolutely   no   public
\n         policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the
\n         accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This is not so in the present case where the Police Officer in his counter has<\/p>\n
    stated that even another FIR is pending against the Applicant No.3 for an<\/p>\n
    offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at<\/p>\n
    J. J. Marg Police Station. Therefore, in our view, this  judgment would also<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    be of no help to the applicants.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     There  is  another   judgment  in  the  case  of  Rajinder  Singh  v\/s  The<\/p>\n
    State (Delhi Administration), reported in  AIR  1980 SC 1200.  In this case<\/p>\n
    only the offence under Section 325 was  compounded. For other offences<\/p>\n
    which   were   non-compoundable,   the   sentence   were   reduced.   Another<\/p>\n
    Judgment  in the case of  Fahimuddin and others v\/s State of U.P. And<\/p>\n
    another,  reported   in   AIR   1981   SC   2008,   in   special   leave   to   appeal   the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court found that the accused were guilty under Section 324 of the<\/p>\n
    Indian   Penal   Code   which   was   compoundable   and   therefore   they   were<\/p>\n
    allowed to compromise. The applicants have also relied on a judgment of<\/p>\n
    the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v\/s<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra & Anr.,  reported in 2008 (2) Mh. L. J. 856,  on the<\/p>\n
    principles of quashing. The Full Bench of this Court also relied on the earlier<\/p>\n
    judgments of the Supreme Court and the principles laid down in the case of<\/p>\n
     Bhajan Lal (Supra) .  In paragraphs 7.10 it referred to the various judgments<\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court and carved out the principles as laid down by the<\/p>\n
    Supreme   Court   in   some   of   the   judgments.   These   principles   may   also   be<\/p>\n
    enumerated below:\n<\/p>\n
         1. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section
\n            482   of   the   Code,   may   interfere   in   proceedings   relating   to
\n            cognizable   offences   to   prevent   abuse   of   the   process   of   any
\n            Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice very sparingly<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
        and with circumspection;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Inherent power under section 482 of the  Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
       Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution;\n<\/p>\n
    3. Power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not
\n       unlimited.   It   can   inter   alia   be   exercised   where   the   Code   is<\/p>\n
       silent,   where   the   power   of   the   Court   is   not   treat   ed   as
\n       exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code;  or the
\n       statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it
\n       involves application of a special law;\n<\/p>\n
    4. The inherent power of the High Court can be invoked in respect<\/p>\n
       of matters covered by the provisions of the Code unless there is
\n       specific  provision  to  redness  the   grievance   of   the   aggrieved
\n       party;\n<\/p>\n
    5. Inherent   power   under   section   482   of   the   Code   overrides
\n       provisions   of   the   Code   but   evidently   cannot   be   exercised   in
\n       violation   \/   contravention   of   a   statutory   provision   or   power
\n       created under any other enactment;\n<\/p>\n
    6. Power under section 482 to quash proceeding should not be<\/p>\n
       used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution;\n<\/p>\n
    7. Such power should be used only when a clear case for quashing
\n       is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage<\/p>\n
       of justice;\n<\/p>\n
    8. Inherent  jurisdiction  under   section   482,   Criminal   Procedure
\n       Code may be exercised in following three circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
       (i)   to give effect to an order under the Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
             Code;\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and\n<\/p>\n
       (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
    9. Inherent power should be exercised to do the right and undo a
\n       wrong;\n<\/p>\n
    10. In exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Code,
\n        Court   would   be   justified   to   quash   any   proceeding   if   the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
        initiation \/ continuation of such proceeding amounts to `abuse
\n        of   the   process’
\n                            of   the   Court   or   quashing   of   the   proceeding
\n        would otherwise serve the ends of justice;\n<\/p>\n
    11. While exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Code,
\n        High Court must refrain from making imaginary journey in the
\n        realm   of   possible   harassment   which   may   be   caused   to<\/p>\n
        concerned   petitioner   on   account   of   investigation   of   FIR   or
\n        complaint;\n<\/p>\n
    12. While exercising inherent power under section 482 of the Code,<\/p>\n
        the High Court must all the while be conscious of the fact that
\n        its   exercise   of   such   power   will   not   result   in   miscarriage   of<\/p>\n
        justice   and   will   not   encourage   those   accused   to   repeat   the
\n        crimes;\n<\/p>\n
    13. The  inherent  powers of High Court under section 482 of the
\n        Code,   cannot   be   exercised   in   regard   to   matters   specifically
\n        covered   by   the   other   provisions   of   the   Criminal   Procedure
\n        Code;\n<\/p>\n
    14. For the purpose of quashing, the complaint has to be examined
\n        as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.\n<\/p>\n
        Neither   a   detailed   inquiry   nor   a   meticulous   analysis   of   the
\n        material nor an assessment of the realibility or genuineness of
\n        the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining
\n        prayer for quashing of a complaint;\n<\/p>\n
    15. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the
\n        Code should not be such as to harm legitimate  expectation  of
\n        the people and the society, that the persons committing offence
\n        are   expeditiously   brought   to   trial   and   if   found   guilty   are<\/p>\n
        adequately punished;\n<\/p>\n
    16. Inherent powers may be used only when reasonably necessary
\n        for the Court to be able to function and Courts may not exercise
\n        inherent powers merely because their use would be convenient
\n        or desirable;\n<\/p>\n
    17. The exercise of inherent power would be necessary whenever it
\n        is just or equitable and it should be to ensure observance of the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
             due process of law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression
\n             and to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial;
\n             and <\/p>\n
         18. While passing an order quashing FIR or criminal proceedings,
\n             as   the   case   may   be,   it   may   be   appropriate   for   the   Court   to
\n             examine   the   impact   of   such   an   order   upon   the   system   of<\/p>\n
             administration of criminal justice and the social fabric. This, of
\n             course,   is   not   a   determinative  factor  but   only   a   relevant
\n             consideration.\n<\/p>\n
    Then in paragraph 9 the Full Bench held as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “9.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 We have already held that power of the Court to compound
\n         offences and power to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings are
\n         distinct  and  different.  They operate  in  different  spheres   and  are<\/p>\n
         different concepts of criminal jurisprudence. Power to quash an FIR
\n         or   criminal   proceedings   under  section   482   of   the   Code   finds   its
\n         source   from   Judge   made   law,   while   power   to   compound   is   a
\n         statutory   power   granted   by   the   language   of   section   320   of   the
\n         Code.   Both   these   powers   have   nothing   in   common   except   the<\/p>\n
         ultimate result, that is, acquittal. They have to be exercised upon
\n         satisfaction  of different criteria, fulfilment of relevant ingredients<\/p>\n
         and  satisfaction  of   the   object   of   legislative   intent   behind  these
\n         provisions.   Power   to  quash  the   criminal  proceedings  is   a   power
\n         which springs from the generality of the provisions of section 482
\n         of the Code and to be exercised in consonance with the judicial<\/p>\n
         pronouncements.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.    While dealing with two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in<\/p>\n
    (1999) 2 SCC 213 and JT (1987) 2 SC 361, the Supreme Court has observed<\/p>\n
    in   the   case   of  Surendra   Nath   Mohanty   and   another   v\/s   State   of<\/p>\n
    Orissa,reported in (1999) 5 SCC 238 as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “5.   In our view, the  submission of the learned counsel for the
\n         respondent   requires   to   be   accepted.   For   compounding   of   the
\n         offences   punishable   under   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   a   complete<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
         scheme   is   provided   under   Section   320   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
\n         Procedure, 1973. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 provides that the
\n         offences   mentioned   in   the   table   provided   thereunder   can   be<\/p>\n
         compounded   by   the   persons   mentioned  in   column  3   of   the   said
\n         table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that the offences mentioned
\n         in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission
\n         of the  court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides<\/p>\n
         that “no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this
\n         section”.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid   legislative   mandate,   only   the
\n         offences which are covered by Table 1 or Table 2 as stated above
\n         can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
         the Indian Penal Code could not be compounded.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         “8.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               We reiterate that the course adopted in Ram Pujan v. State of
\n         U.P.  And    Mahesh   Chand   v.   State   of   Rajasthan  was   not   in
\n         accordance with law. …. … … … …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9.    For   the   reasons   given   above,   we   do   not   find   any   merits   in   the<\/p>\n
    application and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
    application for quashing of the FIR No.22 of 2008 registered with the Antop<\/p>\n
    Hill Police Station, Mumbai on 21st January, 2008 is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (BILAL NAZKI, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 Bench: Bilal Nazki, A.A. Kumbhakoni 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 410 OF 2008 1) MOHD. SHOAIB HAIDER KHAN ) aged 36 years, Occ.: Business, ) residing at 72, Lalji […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2927,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":2927,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008","name":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-03T06:28:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shoaib-haider-khan-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Shoaib Haider Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}