Mr. Ramdas S/O. Purushottam ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5910 Bom

 1408crapl449.17-Judgment                                                                       1/4


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


            CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.   449  OF   2017


 APPLICANT :-                         Mr. Ramdas s/o  Purushottam  Purohit, Aged
 (Original Accused)                   about   62   years,   Occ.:   Private   Service,   R/o
                                      Mezzanine   Floor,   Pitreshwari   Apartment,
                                      Plot   No.222,   Nandanwan   Layout,   Opposite
                                      ICICI   Bank,   Near   Balaji   Kirana   Stores,
                                      Nandanwan, Nagpur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 NON-APPLICANTS:-                1) State of Maharashtra, Through Nandanwan
                                    Police Station, Nagpur. 
 (Original Complainant) 2) Mrs. Ranjana w/o Ajay Burande, Aged about
                           :   Major,   Occ:   Private   Service,   R/o
                           Mezzanine   Floor,   Pitreshwari   Apartment,
                           Plot   No.222,   Nandanwan   Layout,   Opposite
                           ICICI   Bank,   Near   Balaji   Kirana   Stores,
                           Nandanwan, Nagpur.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr.S.A.Jaiswal, counsel for the applicant.
     Ms Tajwar Khan, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.
               Mr. B.M.Kharkate, counsel for the respondent No.2.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR
                                                                   ,   JJ.

DATED : 14.08.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

The criminal application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

1408crapl449.17-Judgment 2/4

2. By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the

quashing of the first information report bearing No.480 of 2015,

registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under

sections 304(d) and 506 of the Penal Code.

3. According to the applicant, the applicant had given a hand

loan of Rs.6,50,000/- to the non-applicant No.2 and since the cheque

tendered by the non-applicant No.2 was dishonoured, the applicant had

filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant No.2 for the offence

punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

non-applicant No.2 was acquitted as the applicant and his counsel were

not present. An appeal was filed by the applicant before the High Court

challenging the order of acquittal of the non-applicant No.2. The non-

applicant No.2 then filed a complaint against the applicant for the

offences punishable under sections 354(d) and 506 of the Penal Code.

According to the applicant, the said complaint was made by the non-

applicant No.2 to counter blast the case filed by the applicant. It is

stated that during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant and

the non-applicant No.2 have settled their disputes amicably with the

intervention of the mediator that was appointed during the pendency of

the proceedings. It is stated that the compromise petition was prepared

1408crapl449.17-Judgment 3/4

and placed before the mediator on 13/06/2017. It is stated that since

the matters between the parties are compromised and the parties have

settled their dispute amicably, it would be necessary to quash and set

aside the proceedings initiated against the applicant under sections

354(d) and 506 of the Penal Code. It is stated that the parties are

residing in the same building and with a view to keep peace and

harmony, they wish that the offence registered against the applicant be

quashed and set aside.

4. The applicant and the non-applicant No.2 are personally

present in the court today. The non-applicant No.2 states that she does

not wish to participate in the proceedings that are pending against the

applicant for the offences punishable under sections 354(d) and 506 of

the Penal Code. It is stated that since the applicant and the non-

applicant No.2 are residing in the same building, in the interest of

justice, the proceedings arising out of the first information report

bearing No.480 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections

354(d) and 506 of the Penal Code should be quashed and set aside.

5. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to

quash and set aside the first information report bearing No.480 of 2015

as also the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1450 of 2016,

1408crapl449.17-Judgment 4/4

pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.7,

Nagpur for the offences punishable under sections 354(d) and 506 of

the Penal Code, by applying the principles laid down in the case of

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application

is allowed. The first information report bearing No.480 of 2015 as also

the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.1450 of 2016, pending on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for the offences

punishable under sections 354(d) and 506 of the Penal Code are hereby

quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.

                        JUDGE                                            JUDGE 


 KHUNTE