Umakant Agnihotri S/O Shampal ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4166 Bom

                                     1                        apl511.16.odt




                                                                          
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                  
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                 
                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.511 OF 2016




                                         
      1. Umakant Agnihotri s/o. Shampal
                             
          Agnihotri, Aged about 46 years,
          Occ. Social Worker, r/o. Shankar
          Nagar, Ambajari Road, Nagpur.
                            
      2. Karan Tuli s/o. Balbirsingh Tuli,
          Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business,
          r/o. Opposite Play House School,
          Byramji Town, Nagpur.
      

      3. Abdul Samad s/o. Abdul Qadir,
          Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business,
   



          r/o. 20-A, New Colony, Near
          Shitlamata Mandir, Nagpur.
      4. Ameen Ahmed s/o. Abdul Gaffar,
          Aged about 30 years, Occ.Labour





          work, r/o. Near Mahesh Kirana
          Store, Mankapur, Nagpur.
      5. Kabir Kochar s/o. Sunil Kochar,
          Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business,
          r/o. Flat No.420, Clark Town,





          Near Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur.
      6. Ajay Pande s/o. Ratishankar Pande,
          Aged about 41 years, Occ.Labour
          work, r/o. BRR Highway Moters,
          Kamptee Road, Nagpur.
      7. Rakesh Mogre s/o. Ramesh Mogre,
          Aged about 30 years, Occ. Service,
          r/o. Near Mata Mandir, Nai Basti,
          Mangalwari Bazar, Nagpur.




    ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2016 23:58:50 :::
                                          2                                apl511.16.odt

      8. Vikrant Barahate s/o. Ramesh 
          Barahate, aged about 35 years, Occ.




                                                                                      
          Service, r/o. Bhim Nagar, near 
          Itarsi Pool, Near the house of 
          Tashni, Nagpur.                   ..........      APPLICANTS




                                                              
              // VERSUS //




                                                             
      State of Maharashtra,
      Through its P.S.O., Police Station,
      Ambazari, Nagpur.                         ..........      RESPONDENT




                                                
                             
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Mr.Shakul Ghatole, Adv. for the Applicants.
              Mr.N.B.Jawade. A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
                            
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


                                         CORAM     :  B. R. GAVAI &
      

                                                              V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 26.7.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

consent.

2. By way of present Criminal Application, all the

applicants, who are complainant and accused, have approached this

Court for quashing of F.I.R. and also charge sheet.

3 apl511.16.odt

3. It appears that the applicant no.1 belongs to one political

set up whereas applicant nos. 2 to 8 belong to other political party. It

further appears that, on account of press conference called by

applicant no.1, there was a fighting amongst applicant no.1 on one

hand and all the other applicants on the other hand. The Criminal

Application is vehemently opposed by the learned A.P.P. on the

ground that the offences are serious ones and the charge sheet is

already filed in the matter.

4. The present Criminal Application is a joint application

filed by the complainant and the accused. It appears that, on account

of some provocation by the political leaders as per the statement

made in the newspaper, there appears to have been a scuffle

between the applicant on one hand and rest of the applicants on the

other hand. Now, in order to live in harmony and lead peaceful

lives, the applicants have decided to give an end to the dispute

between them.

5. We find that no element of public law is involved in the

crime in question. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh

4 apl511.16.odt

and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has

held that, if upon taking the charge sheet at its face value, the

ingredients of the offence are not made out and even after the trial

there is no possibility of the matter ending into conviction, this Court

should exercise powers under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for giving an end to the litigation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

further held that, while considering the application, the stage of

proceedings has also to be taken into consideration. In the present

case, only charge sheet is filed. Trial is yet to commence. We find

that if the matter is permitted to go for trial, it will be nothing else

but wasting valuable time of the trial Court.

6. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the

present Criminal Application while exercising powers under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rule is, therefore, made

absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the present

Criminal Application. No order as to costs.

                                     JUDGE                            JUDGE
       



      jaiswal





                                    5                         apl511.16.odt

                                       CERTIFICATE




                                                                         

I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.

Uploaded by : Jaiswal, P.S. Uploaded on : 1.8.2016.