Bombay High Court
Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 CriApln 2784/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2784 OF 2017
1 Dilip S/o Matsendrarao APPLICANTS
Kandharkar, Age 65 Years,
Occupation Retired, Resident of
Sansardeep 422, N-3, CIDCO,
Aurangabad
2 Ranjana W/o Dilip Kandharkar,
Age 60 Years, Occupation
Retired, Resident of as above
3 Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar, Age
31 Years, Occupation Service,
Resident of as above
At present - Capital One - 77
West Wacker, Drive - Chicago -
Illinios 60601, Age 63 Years,
Occupation Pensioner, Resident
of Audumber Colony, Lane No.2,
Papade Wasti, Phursungi, Pune
4 Jayant Baride, Aged 72 Years,
Occupatiion Doctor, Resident of
Osmanpura, Aurangabad
V E R S U S
1 The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS
Through its Home Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:48:51 :::
2 CriApln 2784/2017
2 The Police Inspector
3 Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar,
Age 30 Years, Occupation
Service, Resident of at Post
Vilas Nilengekar, House No.100,
Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad
Ms. Anuja Kannadkar, Advocate for the
Applicants
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent
Nos.1 & 2
Mr. R.G. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : S.S. SHINDE,J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The affidavit which is placed on record by
the applicant Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar and
respondent No.3 Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar is
verified.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:48:51 :::
3 CriApln 2784/2017
3. The applicant Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar and
respondent No.3 Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar are
present before this Court. It is stated in the
affidavit that it is their voluntary act and without
any coercion they agreed for the settlement in terms
of averments made in the affidavit and respondent No.3
has no objection to quash the First Information
Report. The said affidavit is filed on record, which
is marked as 'Exh.X' for the purpose of
identification. The amicable settlement is taken place
between applicant and respondent No.3, as mentioned
above.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has
taken a view that if the parties have amicably settled
the dispute voluntarily and if the offences are not
punishable with death or life imprisonment or under
the Special Act like the Prevention of Corruption Act
etc. in that case, in order to secure ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of law, the High Court
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:48:51 :::
4 CriApln 2784/2017
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR or the charge-sheet as the
case may be.
5. In order to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of process of Law, we accept the
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.
Hence, we pass the following order :-
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. bearing No. 1154/2016, dated 5th
November, 2016, under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, registered with Mukundwadi Police
Station, Taluka and District Aurangabad
is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
5 CriApln 2784/2017
(iv) Criminal Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
( S.M. GAVHANE, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
SRM/3/8/17
