MOHAMMED ARIF ALLAHUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. The petitioner has asked for two reliefs. First relief is for quashing of F.I.R. and the criminal case registered against the petitioner bearing C.R.No.39 of 2012 registered at Dharavi Police Station for offences punishable under Section 326, 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The second relief is to quash and set aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Appropriate Authority under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Reverting to the first relief, the argument is that the victim, on affidavit has stated that the injury caused to him was due to fall while he was climbing the wall to put up the flag on the top of the roof and not by any weapon or knife, as is noted in the F.I.R. This affidavit of the victim, on whose complaint F.I.R. has been registered is placed on record at Exhibit L, page 72. This argument has been countered by the learned APP by pointing out the statement of the same witness given to the police, on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered on 5.2.2012. In the said statement, the same person has specifically stated that the petitioner was responsible for causing the injury by stabbing him from the back. This statement is corroborated by the two other eye witnesses present at the scene of offence, Zahiruddin Jamiruddin Shaikh and Javed Abdul Sattar Shaikh. Notably, the petitioner is not relying on any affidavit or statement of the two witnesses to refute the fact stated in the F.I.R. The fact that the petitioner has succeeded in obtaining affidavit of the victim does not mean that the F.I.R. registered by the local police against the petitioner is false and vexatious. There is no reason why the police would have recorded such incorrect fact on their own. Further, it is intriguing that incorrect recording of F.I.R. has been realized by the complainant and petitioner after such lapse of time. Suffice it to note that the justification given by the petitioner as well as the complainant is preposterous and false to their knowledge.