Gangadhar S/O. Bapurao Ikkar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9279 Bom

                                  1               Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5164 OF 2017

     1.      Gangadhar Bapurao Ikkar,
             Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture,
             R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
             District Parbhani.

     2.      Ashok Dattrao Magar,
             Age 25 years, Occu. Agriculture,
             R/o Savangi, Taluka Manvat,
             District Parbhani.               ...  Applicants

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra
             Through Police Inspector
             Police Station, Bori,
             Taluka Jintoor, District Parbhani.

     2.    Machhindra Bapurao Ikkar,
           Age 52 years, Occu. Agriculture,
           R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
           District Parbhani.               ...  Respondents
                                ...
     Mr. V.B.Jogdand, Advocate for Applicants
     Mr. M.M.Nerlikar, APP for  Respondent No.1 - State 
                                ...

                                 WITH

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5508 OF 2017

     1.      Machhindra Bapurao Ikkar,
             Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture,
             R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
             District Parbhani.




::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:19:56 :::
                                        2              Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt


     2.      Rameshwar Machhindra Ikkar,
             Age 25 years, Occu. Agriculture,
             R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
             District Parbhani.

     3.      Parmeshwar Machhindra Ikkar,
             Age 29 years, Occu. Agriculture,
             R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
             District Parbhani.               ...  Applicants

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra
             Through Police Inspector
             Police Station, Bori,
             Taluka Jintoor, District Parbhani.

     2.   Gangadhar Bapurao Ikkar,
          Age 52 years, Occu. Agriculture,
          R/o Hatta, Taluka Sailu,
          District Parbhani.               ...  Respondents
                                ...
     Mr. M.V.Salunke, Advocate for Applicants
     Mr. M.M.Nerlikar, APP for  Respondent No.1 - State 
     Mr. S.A.Gaikwad h/f Mr. V.B.Jogdand Patil, Advocate for 
     Respondent No.2
                                ...

                            CORAM :        S.S.SHINDE AND
                                           MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 27th November, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 05th December, 2017

JUDGMENT : (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :-

Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for

3 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

the applicants, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State

and learned advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. These applications have been filed under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred

to as 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing C.R.No.133 of 2017 and 132

of 2017 respectively, registered with Bori Police Station.

Since these crimes have been registered on a cross

complaint as a result of the incident which has

occurred at the same time and since the applicants are

the accused and seeking to quash the respective crimes

on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the

parties, we propose to dispose of these applications by

this common order.

3. In C.R.No.133 of 2017 for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

to as 'I.P.C.'), younger brother Machhindra is the

informant whereas in C.R.No.132 of 2017 for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 326, 324,

323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

4 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

elder brother Gangadhar is the informant. They are real

brothers and possess land adjoining to each other. As

usual there has been a boundary dispute between the

two. When the tempers had risen, on 21.06.2017,

Gangadhar and his son-in-law Ashok who are the

applicants in Criminal Application No.5164 of 2017 on

the one hand and Macchindra and his two sons who are

the applicants in Cri.Appln.No.5508 of 2017, along with

their associates involved in an altercation which ensued

into assault on each other by using weapons like axe

and iron rod. Machhindra sustained injury on the

shoulder, forehead, hands and legs. Gangadhar also

sustained injury on the head and both the knees and

shin.

4. According to the learned advocates for both the

sides, though the offences registered are serious and

non-compoundable, the injured persons are near

relatives and in the interest of everybody involved, they

have arrived at an amicable settlement and desire to

forget and forgive. They also referred to the affidavits

filed by the injured persons. Then they referred to the

5 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

decisions in the case of Narinder Singh and others

Vs. State of Punjab and another [AIR 2014 SC (Supp)

1839] and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

another [(2012) 10 SCC page 303].

5. As against this, the learned APP opposed the

applications and submitted that when the legislature

has not made these serious offences to be

compoundable, the powers of this Court under Section

482 should not be exercised to quash the proceeding on

the ground of such compromise. The learned APP in

support of his submissions referred to the decision in

the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak and

others [AIR 2014 SC 3747].

6. We have carefully gone through the petitions,

papers of the investigation and the affidavits of the

respective injured persons. We have also carefully gone

through the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides.

There can be no dispute that what is specifically not

permissible in law should not be done by invoking the

powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. However, the

6 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

law has been crystalized by the Supreme Court in the

case of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra). The

paramount consideration is the nature and gravity of

the crime and its social impact.

7. Bearing in mind these principles, what weighs

with us is the fact that though there is a grievous injury

sustained by Gangadhar in the form of fracture to a leg,

there is no injury sustained by any of the injured

persons which could be described as fatal. The injuries

sustained by Gangadhar Bapurao Ikkar are as under :

     i)    Contused   lacerated  Right   side   of  Simple
           wound                 parietal   region   of 
                                 head 

ii) Contused lacerated Left frontal region Simple wound of head

iii) Contusion Left knee joint Grievous

- fracture of patella

iv) Contusion Left ankle joint Simple

The injuries sustained by his wife Radhabai

Gangadhar Ikkar are as under :

     i)    Crush Amputation        Distal   phalanx   of  Simple
                                   right ring finger
     ii) Contusion                 Left hand wrist             Simple





                                     7               Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

     iii) Contusion                Back of left thigh         Simple
     iv) Contusion                 Left knee joint            Simple

The injury sustained by Ayodhya Ashok Magar is

as under :

i) Contusion Left hand thumb Simple

The injuries sustained by Ashok Dattarao Magar

are as under :

     i)    Contused   lacerated  Left   side   of  Simple
           wound                 temporal   region   of 
                                 head
     ii) Contusion                 Left knee joint            Simple
     iii) Contusion                Left ankle joint           Simple

As regards the other party, Macchindra Bapurao

Ikkar has sustained following injuries :

i) Contusion Left side of frontal Simple region of head

ii) Contusion Left side of angle of Simple Mandible

iii) Contused lacerated Left shoulder Simple wound region

iv) Contusion Left scapular Simple region

v) Contusion Left hand wrist Simple

8 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

The injuries sustained by his son Parmeshwar

Macchindra Ikkar are as under :

     i)    Contusion                  Right   side   of  Simple
                                      Mandibular
     ii) Contusion                    Right         shoulder  Simple
                                      region
     iii) Contusion                   Left arm                     Simple
     iv) Abrasion                     Right   hand   middle  Simple
                                      finger


     8.      A     bare   look   at   all   these   injuries   would   clearly 

reveal that except a fracture sustained by Gangadhar of

Patella, everybody has sustained only simple injuries.

Besides even though weapon like axe has been used, it

is apparent that the blade of the axe has not been used

by either side else there would have been some cut

injuries as well, which are conspicuously absent. There

is also no material to show that any of these persons

had sustained any injury which could have been fatal.

Therefore, prima facie though the charges are grievous

and even one injury is grievous in nature, the incident

must have been a usual physical altercation in the

family members. We are more than convinced that the

fighting had no effect on the public and does not have

9 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

any potential of impacting the social structure.

9. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak

(supra), the facts were entirely different. In that case,

the accused had used a weapon like sword and the

complainant had specifically alleged that the accused

was having an intention to kill him and had given a blow

of sword on his forehead questioning him as to why he

(complainant) lodged the report against his (accused's)

elder brother ? When such a matter was compromised

and on the basis of such compromise the High Court

had quashed the proceeding by invoking the powers

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it was held that the

offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. falls in the

category of heinous and serious offences and cannot be

treated as a private dispute between the parties and is a

crime against the society. In the matter in hand, though

the offences alleged are punishable under Section 307 of

the I.P.C., as is mentioned above there is no grievous

injury on any vital part of the body. Though the

weapons used were axe, apparently its blades were not

10 Cri.Appln.5164-17.odt

used and except one fracture to the Patella of one

person, there was no grievous injury sustained by

anybody. Besides the fight had ensued as a result of a

boundary dispute between the two brothers and they

have filed cross complaints.

10. In view of such peculiar state of affairs, bearing in

mind the principles in the case of Gian Singh and

Narinder Singh (supra), we deem it appropriate to allow

the parties to lead the life in a more secured

environment rather than by allowing them to harbour

hostility. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the

applications deserve to be allowed and the crimes

deserve to be quashed on the basis of the compromise

by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

11. The applications are accordingly allowed. The

FIRs in the applications are quashed. The rule is made

absolute accordingly.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

...

vmk/-