Bombay High Court
Ajabrao S/O Ramrao Tale vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 8 July, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
APL744.14 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.744 ODF 2014.
APPLICANT: Ajabrao s/o Ramrao Tale,
aged about 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o First Floor, Samitra Complex,
Mahsul Colony, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola.
2. Shivdas s/o Abhimanyu Khandare,
aged 33 years, occu: Business, R/o
Swami Samarth Vihar, Duplex No.7,
Mothi Umri, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.745 ODF 2014.
APPLICANT: Ajabrao s/o Ramrao Tale,
aged about 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o First Floor, Samitra Complex,
Mahsul Colony, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:36:53 :::
APL744.14 2
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola.
2. Rambhau Vishwanath Katole,
aged 55 years, R/o Swami Samarth
Vihar, Duplex No.5, Mothi Umri,
Akola, Tq. and Distt.Akola.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.746 ODF 2014.
APPLICANT: Ajabrao s/o Ramrao Tale,
aged about 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o First Floor, Samitra Complex,
Mahsul Colony, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola.
2. Arun Devidas Wadatkar,
aged 48 years, R/o Swami Samarth
Vihar Duplex No.4, Mothi Umri, Akola,
Tq. and Distt.Akola.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.748 ODF 2014.
APPLICANT: Ajabrao s/o Ramrao Tale,
::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:36:53 :::
APL744.14 3
aged about 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o First Floor, Samitra Complex,
Mahsul Colony, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola.
2. Purushottam Haribhau Dhanokar,
aged Adult, R/o Swami Samarth Vihar,
Duplex No.3, Mothi Umri, Akola, Tq. and
Distt. Akola.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.S.G.Joshi, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr.T.A.Mirza, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.U.J.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents no.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 8th JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M.Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. In all these Criminal Applications, respective non-
applicants no.2 filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract
against the present applicant, who is common in all these
applications. According to the applicant, he floated one Scheme
and all the non-applicants no.2 were the prospective purchasers.
It is also an admitted position that the FIRs Nos.494 of 2011, 493
of 2011, 422 of 2011 and 495 of 2011 are lodged against the
present applicant after the filing of the suit for Specific
Performance of Contract.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant
and Shri U.J.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respective
non-applicants no.2 submit that during the pendency of the
present applications, the parties have settled their dispute
amicably.
4. Looking to the nature of the dispute, it is crystal clear
that the dispute between the first informants and the present
applicant was purely of civil in nature. In that view of the matter,
there is no impediment in quashing the FIRs by accepting the
compromise between the parties in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Narinder
Singh and others ..vs.. State of Punjab and others reported at
(2014)6 SCC 466. The FIR Nos. 494 of 2011, 493 of 2011, 422 of
2011 and 495 of 2011 and the subsequent Regular Criminal Case
Nos.52 of 2014 (Charge Sheet No.8 of 2014), 55 of 2014 (Charge
Sheet No.12 of 2014), 57 of 2014 (Charge Sheet No.7 of 2014)
and 51 of 2014 (Charge Sheet No.9 of 2014), respectively, stand
quashed.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
