Bombay High Court
Pankaj S/O. Dayaram Joshi And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 December, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.Appln.5293-17.Jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5293 OF 2017
1. Pankaj Dayaram Joshi,
Age 26 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Gupta Garden, Gandhi Nagar,
Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.
2. Dayaram Dulji Joshi,
Age 58 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Gupta Garden, Gandhi Nagar,
Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.
3. Shantabai Dayaram Joshi,
Age 48 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Gupta Garden, Gandhi Nagar,
Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.
4. Sangita Yogesh Joshi,
Age 30 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Parli, Vaijinath, Tq. Parli,
Dist. Beed.
5. Nisha Gopal Joshi,
Age 32 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Sendva, Tq. Sendva, Dist. Khargun,
Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through CIDCO N-7 Police Station,
Aurangabad.
2. Sona Pankaj Joshi,
Age 28 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Ganpati Mandir, Nagar Khana,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 00:43:07 :::
2 Cri.Appln.5293-17.Jud.odt
...
Mr. R.G.Joshi, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for Respondent Nos.1 - State
Mr. S.N.Lale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 05th December, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S.S.Shinde J.)
:-
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard
finally.
2. Pursuant to notices issued to Respondents,
Respondent No.2 has caused his appearance through
Advocate Mr. S.N.Lale. Respondent No.2 is present in
the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicants and Respondent No.2 have tendered across
the bar joint affidavit marked as Exh-'X' of applicant
No.1 and Respondent No.2.
3. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court Hall. On
specific query to her, 'whether it is her voluntary act to
3 Cri.Appln.5293-17.Jud.odt
enter into such settlement and pray for quashing the
FIR', she has stated that 'it is her voluntary act to enter
into an amicable settlement'. It is specifically stated by
her that she does not want to continue with the further
proceeding in Regular Criminal Case No.486 of 2016
(State Vs. Pankaj Joshi & others) pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and Respondent No.2 is not
inclined to pursue further proceeding in Regular
Criminal Case No.486 of 2016, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the afore mentioned
proceeding pending before the Court. It will be
exercised in futility and wastage of valuable time of the
Court. Therefore, keeping in view of the observations of
the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC page 303] that
such settlement can be accepted and FIR can be
quashed so as to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent further abuse of the process of the Court, we
4 Cri.Appln.5293-17.Jud.odt
are inclined to allow the application.
5. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Rule made
absolute in terms of prayer clause 'B'. The application
stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
...
vmk/-
