Bombay High Court
Akash Anilkumar Jain vs 1. The State Of Maharashtra & ... on 5 May, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 Cri.Appln.No.2380/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2380 OF 2016
Akash Anilkumar Jain
Age: 29 Yrs., occu. Business,
R/o Block No. 15, Nandadeep
Housing Society, Bansilal Nagar,
Aurangabad. - APPLICANT
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Commissioner of
Police, Aurangabad.
2)
The Police Inspector,
Mukundwadi Police Station,
Aurangabad.
3) Nikita Mahendra Zambad,
Age: 24 Yrs., occu. Business,
R/o Plot No.91/92, N-3,CIDCO,
Aurangabad. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.SV Advant, Advocate for Applicants;
Mr.MM Nerlikar, APP for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2;
Mr.Amit Yadkikar, Adv. For Resp.No.3.
-----
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE :
th
May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2) The applicant is praying for quashment of
the proceedings, initiated at the instance of
Respondent No.3, pursuant to registration of the
crime bearing C.R.No.I-151/2015 registered at Police
Station, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, on 7th March, 2015,
for commission of offence punishable under Sections
354 A,C,D, 384, 341, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code.
3) The applicant and Respondent No.3 have
decided to settle their differences and have
presented the terms of compromise arrived at between
them which are taken on record and marked "X" for
identification. The consent terms are duly signed by
the applicant and Respondent No.3 and their
respective clients, who are present in the court and
have been identified by the respective counsel
representing them. As a token of identification, the
respective counsel have put their signatures on the
terms of compromise.
4) An affidavit is also presented by the
applicant, reiterating the correctness of the consent
terms filed before the Court. The affidavit is taken
on record and marked as "X-1" for identification.
5) We have perused the allegations recorded in
the subject FIR lodged by Respondent No.3. The
allegations are of personal character and looking to
the allegations contained in the FIR, we do not find
that the alleged offence is having any impact on the
society at large.
6) On consideration of the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. - (2012) 10 SCC
303 and B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana - (2003) 4 SCC
675, according to us, this is a fit case for granting
leave to the parties to arrive at settlement and
direct quashment of the FIR. It is also to be taken
note of that even if the matter reaches the stage of
trial, the prosecution is not likely to succeed.
7) For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal
Application deserves to be allowed and the same is
accordingly allowed. The proceedings initiated
against the applicant, pursuant to registration of
the crime bearing C.R.No.I-151/2015 registered at
Police Station, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, on 7th March,
2015, for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 354 A,C,D, 384, 341, 465, 468, 471 and 506
of Indian Penal Code, shall stand quashed and set
aside.
8) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
sd/- sd/-
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/
