Communal Frenzy Between Two Communities Led To Scuffle: Bombay HC Refuses To Quash Cross FIRs In Hindu Muslim Dispute
The Bombay High Court refused to quash the Cross FIRs in a case relating to a communal fight between families belonging to Hindu and Muslim communities.
The Court was dealing with Writ Petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in a case registered for the offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Rajesh S. Patil observed, “There is an allegation of injuries being suffered by these persons who lodged the second FIR. The investigation is complete according to the learned APP. The learned APP further submits that the charge-sheet is ready and would be filed before the appropriate Court. It appears that the communal frenzy between the two communities has led to the scuffle. Offences are clearly made out in both the FIRs.”
Advocates Shane Illahi Turky and Fazlurrahman Shaikh represented the Petitioners while APPs P.N. Dabholkar and R.M. Pethe represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The First Informant was a 27-year-old lady belonging to the Muslim community. As per the FIR, there was a religious function being performed by a community of people belonging to the Hindu religion. It was Complainant’s brother’s wedding and the family was preparing to visit the market for shopping purposes. A person, namely, Vijay, residing in the same lane, was sitting in the pandal along with his mother and the Complainant approached his mother and told her in Hindi “Aunty ye sab galat hai”.
This one sentence evoked an unexpected response and allegedly, Vijay along with others started using foul language and abuses against the Complainant. The Accused allegedly assaulted the male members of the Complainant’s relatives, including the Complainant and her mother. Physical injuries were suffered by one Mehrunnisa and a friend of the Complainant. This led to the registering of an FIR and the other side filed an FIR only to counter the first FIR.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Specific contentions of offences are found in both the FIRs. The process of law would take its own course through the trial. We are not convinced that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and ends of justice would not be met by quashing both the FIRs.”
The Court concluded that the process of law would take its own course through the trial and ends of justice would not be met by quashing both the FIRs.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and refused to quash the Cross FIRs.
Cause Title: Vijay Rambabu Sonkar & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:217-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shane Illahi Turky, Karim Pathan, and Fazlurrahman Shaikh.
Respondents: APPs P.N. Dabholkar and R.M. Pethe.
