Bombay High Court
Gangadhar S/O Haribhau Andhure ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
criappln715.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 715 OF 2016
1. Gangadhar s/o Haribhau Andhure
age 54 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Uttam s/o haribhau Andhure
age 64 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Bhagwan s/o Haribhau Andhure
age 60 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Rambhau s/o Uttam Andhure
age 35 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Bharat s/o Uttam Andhure
age 30 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad.
6. Santosh s/o Uttam Andhure
age 37 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad. .. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Ashok s/o Narayan Andhure
age 45 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Wahegaon, Tq. Gangapur
Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, advocate for applicants.
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, APP for the State.
Mr. K.N. Shaikh, advocate for respondent no. 2.
=====
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:27:22 :::
criappln715.16.doc
2
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 15th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashment of the criminal proeeding in
Sessions Case No. 311/2012 under sections 307, 325, 326, 143, 147, 148,
149, 504 and 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad.
3. Complainant Ashok alleges that accused / applicants herein
launched assault on his person as well as on the person of his brother
Sanjay. As a result of assault launched by accused, both the brothers
sustained grievous injuries and were required to be admitted to the
hospital. After due investigation, charge sheet has been presented and
charges are framed against accused.
4. Accused persons as well as complainant and his brother who is
another victim of the attack have presented affidavit duly verified before the
Oath Officer. Both the victims have stated in their affidavit that since the
accused and the injured witnesses are residing in the same village and are
related to each other, they have decided to settle their differences amicably.
Reliance is placed on a judgment in the matter of Narinder Singh & others
Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2014 Cri. L.J. 2436. In
criappln715.16.doc
identical set of facts, the Honourable Supreme Court permitted the parties
to enter into compromise. In paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment, it is
observed thus :
28. Having said so, we would hasten to add
that though it is a serious offence as the accused
person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot
be oblivious to hard realities that many times
whenever there is a quarrel between the parties
leading to physical commotion and sustaining of
injury by either or both the parties, there is a
tendency to give it a slant of an offence under
Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because
FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of
Section 307, IPC would not, by itself, be a ground
to reject the petition under section 482 of the
Code and refuse to accept the settlement between
the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
while taking a call as to whether compromise in
such cases should be effected or not, the High
Court should go by the nature of injury
sustained, the portion of the bodies where the
injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries
are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body)
and the nature of weapons used etc. On that
basis, if it is found that there is a strong
possibility of proving the charge under Section
307, IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led
and injuries proved, the Court should not accept
settlement between the parties. On the other
hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of
the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court
forms an opinion that provisions of section 307,
IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge-
sheet, the Court can accept the plea of
compounding of the offence based on settlement
between the parties.
29. At this juncture, we would like also to add
that the timing of settlement would also play a
crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of
offence when the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be somewhat
liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceeding/investigation. Of course, it would
criappln715.16.doc
be after looking into the attendant circumstances
as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when
challan is submitted but the charge has not been
framed, the High Court may exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage,
as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O.
under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Is also placed before
the Court it would become the bounden duty of
the Court to go into the said report and the
evidence collected, particularly the medical
evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the
victim. This aspect, however, would be examined
along with another important consideration,
namely, in view of settlement between the parties,
whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest
of justice to continue with the criminal
proceedings and whether possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the
answer to this question in affirmative, then also
such a case would be a fit case for the High Court
to give its stamp of approval to the compromise
arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in
such cases no useful purpose would be served in
carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all
likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.
5. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and the fact
that since the injured witness and the injured complainant have decided to
sort out their differences with the accused, there is no chance of
prosecution succeeding at the trial and securing conviction of accused. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the proceeding
initiated in pursuance to lodging of First Information Report as well as
proceeding of sessions case pending before the Court shall be quashed and,
those are accordingly quashed.
6. It must be noted that accused have launched attack on the
complainant and the injured witness and tried to take their life. On the
basis of information lodged by the informant the police machinery was
criappln715.16.doc
moved and after due investigation, charge sheet has been presented. The
learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
In the circumstances, while exercising jurisdiction under section 484 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in directing quashment of the proceedings of
the sessions case, we deem it appropriate to direct accused to deposit cost
of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court. The amount of cost shall be deposited within
a period of four weeks with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee at
Aurangabad. Rule made absolute accordingly.
( K. L. WADANE )
ig ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
