Bombay High Court
Amol @ Ajay S/O. Gopalrao Pajai And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 31 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
3108apl591.17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 591 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1. Amol @ Ajay s/o Gopalrao Pajai, aged about
36 years, Occp: Service, R/o V.H.B. Colony,
Near Water Tank, Ward No.31, Akola, Tq.
And Dist. Akola.
2. Vijay Yashwant Wahurwagh, aged about 48
years, Occp: Labour, R/o Jetwan Nagar,
Dhobi Khadan, Akola, Tq. And dist. Akola.
...VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANT:- State of Maharashtra, through
Superintendent of Police, Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.M.Ghare, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 31.08.2017
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 at
the stage of admission.
3108apl591.17-Judgment 2/4
2. By this criminal application, the applicants seek the
quashing and setting aside of the first information report No.M-136 of
2016 registered against the applicant No.1 for the offences punishable
under sections 3(f)(r)(z) and 10 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. A report was lodged by the applicant No.2 against the
applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 3(f)(r)(z) and
10 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. Since the non-applicant No.1 did not take any action on
the complaint made by the applicant No.2, proceedings were filed by
the applicant No.2 for an order under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed
the non-applicant to further investigate in the matter. On the basis of
the order and further investigation, the offence was registered against
the applicant No.1 under the provisions of sections 3(f)(r)(z) and 10 of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It
is stated on behalf of the applicants that both the applicants are the
residents of nearby localities in Akola. It is stated that the applicants
have amicably settled the disputes between them and they wish that
cordial relationship should be maintained between them. It is stated
that since the applicant No.2 is not interested in disturbing the future
3108apl591.17-Judgment 3/4
life and prospects of the applicant No.1, who is about to secure
employment in the Western Coalfields Limited, he desires that the first
information report against the applicant No.1 should be quashed and
set aside.
4. The applicants are personally present in the court today.
We had asked the applicant No.2-Vijay Wahurwagh whether he was not
interested in participating in the proceedings that may be initiated
against the applicant No.1 in pursuance of the registration of the
offence under the provisions of sections 3(f)(r)(z) and 10 of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
applicant No.2 has answered in the affirmative and has stated that he
would not like to proceed against the applicant No.1. The applicant
No.2 states that the dispute between the parties is settled amicably and
hence, the first information report registered against the applicant No.1
may be quashed and set aside.
5. In the aforesaid set of facts, by applying the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it would be necessary to quash
the first information report registered against the applicant No.1. The
applicant Nos.1 and 2 have amicably settled their disputes and since
3108apl591.17-Judgment 4/4
both of them are the residents of Akola, they wish to maintain a
harmonious relationship, in future. As per the judgment in the case of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the compromise between the parties
could itself be a consideration for quashing the first information report
registered against the accused. Also, if the non-applicant No.2 is not
desirous of participating in the proceedings that could be initiated
against the applicant No.1 in pursuance of the registration of the first
information report, it is unlikely that the said proceedings would result
in the conviction of the applicant No.1.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application
is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicant
No.1, bearing No.M-136 of 2016 for the offences punishable under
sections 3(f)(r)(z) and 10 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby quashed and set aside. Order
accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
