Bombay High Court
Shashank Sudhirkumar Chaudhari ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
APL215.16[J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.215 OF 2016
1] Shashank Sudhirkumar Chaudhari, Accused in Crime
Aged 20 years, Occ : Student, No.482/2015
R/o. B-1/32, Venkatesh Nagar,
Nagpur.
2] Roshan Shekh Kayyum Shekh,
Aged 25 years, Occ : Private,
R/o. PWD Colony, Katol Road,
Nagpur.
3] Pankaj Ramesh Daharwal,
Aged 25 years, Occ : Student,
R/o. Subhash Putala, Hanuman
Mandir Road, Nagpur.
4] Abhishik Sing Ashutosh Sing Wardhan,
Aged 25 years, Occ : Student,
R/o. G/95, Welcome Home Apartment
Giripeth Dharampeth Nagpur.
5] Divyam Harishankar Samrit,
Aged 22 years, Occ : Student,
R/o. C/o. Agarwal, G/95,
Welcome Home Apartment,
Giripeth Dharampeth Nagpur.
6] Harsh Vinodkumar Modi, Orig.
Aged 22 years, Occ : Social Worker, Complainant In
R/o. Modi Bhavan, Near Durga Mandir, Cr. No.481/15
Saundad, Taluka-Arjuni, District-Gondia.
7] Devu @ Hariom Shamji Wagh, Accused in Crime
Aged 22 years, Occ : Social Worker, No.481/2015
R/o. Plot No.56, Shrikrushna Nagar,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:07:53 :::
APL215.16[J].odt 2
8] Ritesh Damodar Nandgavli,
Aged 18 years, Occ : Student
R/o. Flat No.67/31, Venkatesh Nagar,
Nagpur.
9] Rajendra Rupdas Pitaniya,
Aged 22 years, Occ : Plumber,
R/o. E-7, Venkatesh Nagar,
Nagpur.
10] Akshay Gajanan Morghade,
Aged 20 years, Occ : Driver,
R/o. Plot No.2, NIT Colony,
Block F Venkatesh Nagar,
Nagpur.
11] Snehal s/o Devanand Meshram, Orig. Complain-
Aged 25 years, Occ : Service, ant in Crime No.
R/o. A/15/01, Venkatesh Nagar, 482/2015.
Nagpur. .. Applicants
.. Versus ..
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Officer,
Nandanvan Police Station,
Nagpur. .. Respondent
..........
Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the applicants,
Ms. R.V. Kaliya, A.P.P. for the respondent.
..........
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 13, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2] The present applicants have filed the present application for
quashing and setting aside Crime Nos.481/2015 and 482/2015.
3] Two counter first information reports came to be filed by
applicant no.6 and applicant no.11. The first information report lodged
by applicant no.6 states that he had gone to a party in a lawn on
19.12.2015 at 11.30 p.m. On 20.12.2015 around 01.30 hours, his three
friends came there and informed that their friend met with an accident.
He further states that by his duster vehicle, they came near the gate of
Vyankatesh colony and two friends came there on motorcycle. At that
time, the first informant was informed that there was no accident, but
the people in the colony had assaulted his friends. He further states
that when they went inside the colony asking about the incident, the
accused in the said crime came there and started assaulting the first
informant and the other people. On the basis of these allegations, an
offence under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal
Code came to be registered.
4] The other offence is registered by applicant no.11. The
allegations in the said first information report is that when he had come
home from office, one person namely Bihari was chitchatting with his
two friends. When the first informant in this crime was taking walk, he
accosted them and asked them as to why they were chitchatting. On
saying so, he brought one another person and started threatening him.
After that certain other people came on motorcycle as well as in a silver
duster and started assaulting the first informant and his friends. On the
basis of these allegations, first information report came to be registered
for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 325 and 294 of the
Indian Penal Code.
5] Now the applicants have approached this court by way of
present application. It is submitted that all the offences i.e. under
Sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable,
however, since other offences are also included in the crime, the matter
could not be compounded.
6] Mr. Wathore, the learned counsel for the applicants submits
that all the applicants are young boys and most of them are students and
some of them are doing private job. It is submitted that one of the
applicants has been selected for job in a foreign nation and due to the
pendency of this criminal proceeding, he is not in a position to travel
abroad. It is submitted that both the first information reports came to
be registered on account of misunderstanding.
7] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and
others .vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466,
has held that even in the cases of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
on the basis of the prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as
to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. It has been held that in the former
case the High Court can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible
for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties. Their Lordships further
observed that, at this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.
8] In the present case the trial is yet to commence. The parties
have amicably settled the matter. All the applicants are young in age.
Some of them are students and some of them are doing private job.
If the settlement is permitted, it would bring harmony in the area in
which they are residing.
9] In that view of the matter, we find that this is a fit case in
which this court accepts the settlement between the parties and gives an
end to the dispute between them. Rule is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (i) and (ii). No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
