Amol Rajaram Mandavgade And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...

                                            1                                      jg.apl 697.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 697 of 2017

Applicants :                          (1)  Amol Rajaram Mandavgade
                                             Aged about 24 years, Occ- Labour, 
                                             R/o Khadgaon, Tah Kalmeshwar 
                                             Dist Nagpur. 
                                      (2)  Yadeshwari Surajlal Chauragade, 
                                             Aged about 31 years, Occ- Household 
                                             R/o Khadgaon, Tah Kalmeshwar 
                                             Dist Nagpur. 
                                      (3)  Surajlal Maniram Chauragade, 
                                             Aged about 38 years, Occ- Private
                                             R/o Khadgaon, Tah Kalmeshwar 
                                             Dist Nagpur.

                                             //  Versus //

Respondent :-                                State of Maharashtra,
                                             Through Police Station Kalmeshwar 
                                             Dist. Nagpur. 

Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the applicants 
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
                      
                               CORAM      :  R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                               M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                             DATE   :  21-11-2017.

JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 prayed to quash and set aside Special Criminal Case No. 97/2014 (Crime No. 90/2014) pending before .....2/-

::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:14 :::

2 jg.apl 697.17.odt the 6th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

3. The applicant no. 2 lodged the report dated 22-3-2017 against the applicant no. 1 alleging that her daughters viz. Ku. Harshita and Ku. Yogita had been to buy shampoo pouch to the shop of accused. Ku. Harshita and Yogita not returned for long time, therefore, she enquired from her daughters. Harshita told applicant no. 2 that applicant no. 1 touched his penis to her underwear/vagina. Applicant no. 2 lodged the report. On her report, Crime No. 90/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act came to be registered.

4. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Ku. Harshita. Special Criminal Case No. 97/2014 is filed against the applicant no. 1.

5. During the pendency of criminal trial, applicants have amicably settled the matter. The applicant no. 1 is running a small shop selling miscellaneous articles. The applicants are residents of same locality. To keep good relations with each other, they have settled the dispute amicably. The applicant no. 2/complainant do not want to prosecute the applicant no. 1, therefore, prayed to quash the charge-

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 697.17.odt sheet /Special Criminal Case No. 97/2014 pending before the 6 th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

6. Today, applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present before the Court. We have specifically asked the complainant i.e. applicant no. 2 Yadeshwari Surajlal Chauragade. She has stated that matter is settled between them and she do not want to prosecute the applicant no. 1. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are husband and wife. Both of them stated before us that due to misunderstanding, report was lodged. They are residents of same locality. Their relations are cordial. Therefore, they have settled the dispute amicably.

7. Heard learned counsel Shri Ali for the applicants. He has pointed out decision of Kerala High Court in Cri. MC. No. 7251/2016 dated 7-11-2016 and submitted that proceedings pending against the applicant no. 1 be quashed.

8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Deshmukh for the respondent. She has strongly opposed the application.

9. The applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly filed the present application. The applicant no. 2 is the complainant. The applicant no. 3 is husband of the applicant no. 2. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents .....4/-

::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:15 :::

4 jg.apl 697.17.odt of Harshita and Yogita. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 have stated before us that due to misunderstanding, report was lodged. They are residents of the same locality. They have good relations, therefore, they do not want to prosecute the applicant no. 1. In view of the cited decision and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping Special Criminal Case No. 97/2014 pending before the Court. Hence, we pass the following order.

(i) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (1) and (2) and quash Special Criminal Case No. 97/2014 pending before the 6th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.

(ii) No order as to costs.

10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

                        JUDGE                                    JUDGE

wasnik




                                                                                          ...../-




::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017                                ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:05:15 :::