Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O Ravindra Deshmukh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 8 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 APL44-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 44/2016
...
1. Rahul s/o Ravindra Deshmukh,
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation:..
R/o Yeshomangal Colony,
Near Meghe Complex, Amravati,
(Accused No.1).
2. Shrikant s/o Vinayakrao Chitrakar,
Aged about 28 years, Occ.
Hirganga Colony, Near Oil Mill,
Amravati (Accused No.2).
3. Piyush s/o Subhashrao Wasu,
Aged about 26 years, Occ.
R/o Behind Bus Stand, Wadgaon,
(Accused No.3).
4. Amol s/o Vijay Agrawal,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.
R/o Yeshomangal Colony, Kathora
Naka, Amravati (Accused No.4).
5. Bhushan s/o Vijayrao Daware,
Aged about 28 years, Occ.
R/o Sai Apartment,
Yashomangal Colony, Amravati
(Accused No.5).
6. Roshan s/o Nandkishore Kitukle,
Aged about 27 years, Occ.
R/o Pushpagandha Colony,
Amravati.
7. Sau. Jayshree w/o Vijayrao Dahake,
(Complainant), aged about 50 yrs.,
Occ. Housewife, R/o Dahake House,
Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati. .. APPLICANTS
.. Versus ..
::: Uploaded on - 10/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:40:24 :::
2 APL44-16.odt
The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Rajapeth,
Amravati, district Amravati. .. RESPONDENT
Mr. R.M. Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr. B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for Applicant No.7.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
...
CORAM : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
DATED : June 08, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing
and setting aside Summary Criminal Case No. 719/2010 pending
before the Court of 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati for
the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452,
324, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4 and 25 of the
Arms Act.
3. The first information report came to be lodged on the
oral report of applicant no.7 on 10.05.2010 stating therein that
applicant Nos. 1 to 6 who had some financial dispute with the son
of the first informant, had come to the house of applicant no.7
armed with the hockey sticks and a sword. It is also stated in the
3 APL44-16.odt
FIR that when the first informant tried to take her son inside the
house and closed the door, one of the accused assaulted her with
the sword due to which she sustained serious injuries. It is also
alleged that the applicant Nos. 1 to 6 had come in the house,
ransacked the same and also stolen certain properties.
4. An attempt was made before the learned trial Judge for
compounding the case. However, since some of the offences are
not compoundable, the learned Magistrate refused to permit the
parties to compound the case.
5. The parties are present in the Court. We have personally
interviewed applicant no.7. She has reiterated that the matter is
settled between the accused persons and herself. She states that
there is no coercion or threat on her. She further states that the
accused persons are the friends of her younger son and, therefore,
taking into consideration the future of the accused who are all
young persons, she has decided to give an end to the criminal
proceedings.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and
ors. .vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6
Supreme Court Cases 466 has held that even in cases where an
offence is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, taking into
consideration the various factors that have been laid down in the
4 APL44-16.odt
said case, the Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and give an end to the criminal
proceedings. One of the factors that has been laid by the Apex
Court is the stage of the proceeding. In the present case though
the evidence of the complainant is recorded in the year 2012,
nothing much has progressed further.
7. The perusal of the medical certificate would reveal that
the injuries sustained by applicant no.7 cannot be said to be on
vital part of body, inasmuch as the injuries are on wrist. It appears
that the offence was committed by applicant Nos. 1 to 6 when they
had not reached the age of maturity.
8. One of the factors the Apex Court has laid down is the
possibility of conviction being remote. We find that in the present
case when the complainant herself does not wish to prosecute the
proceedings, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. The
Apex Court has further held that the Court may 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.
9. In the present case, as already stated hereinabove,
applicant Nos. 1 to 6 are the friends of the younger son of applicant
no.7. It appears that the settlement between the parties would
5 APL44-16.odt
bring a harmony in the society and improve the relationship
between the parties.
10. In that view of the matter, the present case is a fit case
wherein this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter, the
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).
(V.M. Deshpande, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.)
...
halwai/p.s.
