Bombay High Court
Raju @ Rajesh S/O Gunderao Kale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 3 May, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 APL 316.16.[J]odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 316 OF 2016
1] Raju @ Rajesh s/o Gunderao Kale,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o. Near Shiv Mandir, Sanmati Colony,
Shegaon Road, Amravati.
2] Nandkishor s/o Chandrakishor Ingole,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o. Jalpurti Colony, Near Harshraj Colony,
Vidhyut Nagar Road, Amravati.
3] Sau. Anjali w/o Deepak Iwane,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Labour,
R/o. Iwarkhed, Tahsil and District - Baitul (M.P.)
Presently residing at Takharkheda,
Aasegaon, Chandurbazar, Distt. Amravati. .... APPLICANTS
....Versus....
The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. P.S. Nandgaon Peth,
District - Amravati. ..... RESPONDENT
..........
Mr. A.S. Band, Advocate for Applicants,
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, APP for the Respondent.
..........
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MAY 03, 2016.
2 APL 316.16.[J]odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI , J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for
the parties finally by consent.
2] The present application has been filed by the applicants-accused nos.1
and 2 and applicant no.3, who is the complainant, jointly for the quashment of the
F.I.R. and further proceeding in Special Sessions Trial No.21/2015 pending on the
file of Court of learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for
the offence punishable under Section 354-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3 (1) (11) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide Crime No.65/2014 at Police Station, Nandgaon-
Peth, Amravati against applicant nos.1 and 2.
3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that :
Applicant No.3 i.e. the complainant lodged complaint with Police
Station, Nandgaon-Peth, Amravati alleging that on 27.4.2014 at about 9.00 pm,
when the complainant along with her husband and five years old son were sleeping
in heap of sand, at that time, on the other side of the road, the applicant nos.1 and 2
were consuming liquor and their car was parked on the road. In the midnight, the
applicant-accused no.1 approached to the complainant and allegedly pressed her
breast. The complainant raised alarm. On hearing her shouts, the applicant no.1
along with applicant no.2 tried to flee away, however, they were apprehended by the
3 APL 316.16.[J]odt
complainant, her husband and their neighbours and the complaint came to be
lodged. The offence was registered against the applicant nos.1 and 2 on 28.4.2014.
4] Consequently, the chargesheet has been filed in the court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Amravati and the case was committed to the
court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati vide Special Sessions Trial
No.21/2015.
5] It is submitted that during the pendency of said case, with the
intervention of elderly/reputed persons of both community and respective family
members of applicants, applicant no.3/complainant arrived at amicable settlement
with applicants/accused nos.1 and 2 outside Court and they have decided to forget
the dispute between them and to live peacefully.
6] It is submitted that applicants are having good terms and also want to
maintain their cordial relations in future also to lead peaceful life without keeping any
ill-will in future.
7] In case of Gian Singh .vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2010 ALL MR
(Crimes) 3942 and Madan Gopal Abot .vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the dispute between the parties is
amicably settled and there is no element of public law involved, this Court can
exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give an
end to the criminal proceedings.
4 APL 316.16.[J]odt
8] We do not find that any public law is involved in the present matter.
The F.I.R. appears to have been lodged on account of misunderstanding between
the parties and now the applicant no.3 has no grudge against the applicant nos.1
and 2. They have bona fidely settled the dispute.
9] Thus, since the matter has been settled between the parties outside the
court, in order to achieve harmony between the parties, it would be appropriate to
exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
So also even if the trial is conducted, there is possibility of witnesses turning hostile
and there is no possibility of conviction in the trial.
10] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since the courts
are flooded with old pending matters, we do not find that any purpose would be
served in forcing the trial upon the parties, particularly when they have settled the
matter and there is remote possibility of securing a conviction. The parties are
present before the court and they reiterate about the settlement.
11] In the result, Criminal Application is hereby allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
JUDGE. J UDGE.
Gulande
