Bombay High Court
Sitaram vs The District Superintendent on 4 December, 2013
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, M.T. Joshi
cra327.06
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2006
1) Sitaram s/o Madhavrao Wagh,
Age-50 years, Occu:Agriculture
& business, R/o-Nutan Colony,
Ambad, Dist-Jalna,
2) Raosaheb Trimbak Tarde,
Age-40 years, Occu:Agriculture,
R/o-Kingaon, Tq-Ambad,
Dist-Jalna.
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The District Superintendent
of Police, Jalna,
2) The Police Inspector,
Police Station Ambad,
Dist-Jalna,
3) Tarabai w/o Babasaheb Kalunke,
Age-32 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o-Kingaon, Tq-Ambad,
Dist-Jalna.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri.S.A. Gaikwad Advocate h/f. Shri. A.B.
Gaikwad Advocate for Applicants.
Smt.B.B. Gunjal, A.P.P. for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Shri.A.N. Rathod Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:31 :::
cra327.06
2
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2.
The Applicant No.1 - Sitaram Madhavrao
Wagh and Applicant No.2 - Raosaheb Trimbak Tarde,
filed present Criminal Application praying for
quashing the complaint and the proceedings of
Crime No.5 of 2006 registered under Section 354
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the
pendency of the Application, prayer clauses were
amended and it was further prayed that criminal
proceedings bearing S.T.C. No.554 of 2008 (S.C.C.
No.554 of 2008 "State vs. Sitaram and ors.)
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First
cra327.06
Class, Ambad for the offences punishable under
Section 354 read with 34 of I.P.C., be quashed and
set aside.
3. The learned Single Judge had granted
interim stay in terms of prayer clause (C) on 1st
February 2006, which reads as under:
"C) During the pendency and hearing
of this application the police
inspector, police station Ambad be
directed not to arrest the applicant
and he be further directed to
release on bail in the event of
their arrest in crime No.5 of 2006
and obliged."
4. By an order dated 28th March 2007,
Application was admitted with further direction
that, in so far as the offence punishable under
the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, there shall be stay to the proceedings.
cra327.06
5. The Application is moved as the parties
have filed compromise purshis on record signed and
verified by the Applicants - Sitaram Madhavrao
Wagh and Raosaheb Trimbakrao Tarde, and Respondent
No.3 - Tarabai w/o Babasaheb Kalunke, dated 25th
November, 2013. A separate affidavit is filed by
the Respondent No.3/complainant - Tarabai w/o
Babasaheb Kalunke.
6. In the affidavit in Para 3, 5, 6 and 7,
Respondent No.3/ complainant states as under:
"3. I submit that the dispute arose
between me and the applicants on the
trifle ground and due to
misunderstanding. During the period
of 6 years, the relation between me
and the applicants have became
cordial and therefore I want to
settle the matter amicably.
5. I submit that, I myself and the
applicants want to maintain cordial
cra327.06
relation and desire to put an end to
the litigation and reside
peacefully.
6. I submit that, myself and the
applicants do not have any previous
dispute and enmity and want to
maintain brotherly and good
relations among ourselves.
I submit that, I want to settle
the matter amicably and do not want
to proceed the matter bearing S.T.C.
no.554/2008 which is pending before
the J.M.F.C. Ambad."
7. In the compromise purshis, it is stated
that during the last six years relations between
the Applicants and the complainant were cordial.
They are resident of the same village and they
decided to settle the matter amicably.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicants places
reliance on the following reported Judgments:
cra327.06
1) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
and another, 2012 DGLS(Soft.) 457,
2) B.S. Joshi and others vs. State
of Haryana and another, 2003 ALL MR
(Cri) 1162(S.C.),
3) Mansur A. Khan vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2004 ALL
MR(Cri) 1911,
4) Shailesh s/o Sunil Pagare and
others vs. the State of Maharashtra
and others, 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 57.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel
for the Applicants that considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the affidavits filed
before this Court, it would be in the interest of
justice to quash the proceedings.
10. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.3 submits that the parties be permitted to
settle the dispute and the proceedings be quashed
cra327.06
and set aside.
11. Both the learned counsel, appearing for
Applicants and Respondent No.3 submits that
parties are present in the Court and they identify
the parties.
12. On confronted by us, Respondent No.3
submits that she does not want to proceed further
the criminal proceedings lodged against the
Applicants. She is making a statement out of her
free will, without any pressure on her, according
to Respondent No.3.
13. The scope and ambit of powers of this
Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are enunciated in the Judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, cited supra. The
Apex Court observed that the High Court while
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of
cra327.06
Criminal Procedure, must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime and the same has
to be exercised in accordance with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court.
14. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, we have noticed that this Court had stayed
the proceedings initiated under the provisions of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore charge-
sheet came to be filed for an offence punishable
under Section 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. It was submitted that said case is pending
before the trial Court. Plea of the accused was
recorded, according to the counsel of the
Applicants.
15. Considering the afore mentioned facts,
circumstances, nature of allegations made,
cra327.06
submissions advanced and the contentions raised in
the affidavits filed by the parties, we are of the
opinion that the proceedings initiated on
complaint filed by Respondent No.3 and consequent
filing of the charge-sheet pending before the
J.M.F.C. Ambad, needs to be quashed and set aside
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this
Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
O R D E R
(I) The first information report
registered at Crime No.5 of 2006
registered with Police Station
Ambad, Dist-Jalna for the offences
punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, is quashed and set aside.
cra327.06
(II) Criminal Case bearing S.T.C.
No.554 of 2008 (S.C.C. No.554 of
2008 "State vs. Sitaram and others")
filed for the offences punishable
under Section 354 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code pending before
the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Ambad, Dist-Jalna, is quashed
and set aside.
(III) Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.
[M.T. JOSHI,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
asb/DEC13
