Bombay High Court
Shivnath Raghunath Avhad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
crappln77916.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.779 OF 2016
1 Shivnath Raghunath Avhad,
age: 70 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Kopare, Taluka Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar.
2 Ramesh Shivnath Avhad,
age: 42 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o as above.
3 Sambhaji Kisan Avhad,
age: 42 years, Occ: Service,
R/o as above.
4 Pandharinath Rambhau Andhale,
age: 55 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Javkheda-Khalsa,
Taluka Pathardi, District
Ahmednagar.
5 Tukaram Pandharinath Andhale,
age: 27 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o as above. Applicants
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through Pathardi Police Station,
Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.
2 Sudhakar Dadarao Borude,
age: 58 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Kopare, Taluka Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar. Respondents
Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, advocate for the applicants.
Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:14:05 :::
{2}
crappln77916.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.L.WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 21st April, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 The applicants are seeking to quash criminal
proceedings initiated in pursuance to lodging of First Information
Report being CR No.89/2015, registered at Pathardi Police Station,
for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 143 and 295 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3 The complainant is present in the Court and has filed
an affidavit stating therein that the filing of the complaint was due
to misunderstanding between the parties. He has also stated in
the affidavit that in order to maintain harmonious relations with
the villagers, complainant does not want to press the complaint
and has desire to put an end to the dispute between the parties.
Copy of the affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for
identification. Learned advocate representing the complainant
before the Court has put an endorsement below the affidavit that
contents of the affidavit are explained to the complainant in
Marathi and he has accepted correctness of the contents. The
complainant has also clarified that he has no desire to prosecute
the complainant.
{3}
crappln77916.odt
4 The allegations levelled in the complaint are not of
serious nature and do not come within the ambit of guidelines
recorded by the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & another, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303. Even
otherwise, since the complainant has no desire to prosecute the
complaint, the prosecution is not likely to succeed. The offence is
of an individual character and does not make impact on the
society.
In this view of the matter, proceedings initiated at the
instance of complainant, being Cr.No.89/2015, registered at
Pathardi Police Station, against the applicants stands quashed.
6 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crappln71916
