Vinod S/O. Hanumantrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9467 Bom

                                                       648.2017 Cri.WP.odt
                                        1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2017 


          Vinod s/o.Hanumantrao Suryawanshi,  
          Age: 33 Years, Occ: Service,  
          R/o. Deolai Chowk, Behind Prashant Hotel, 
          Sai Shakti Apartment, Satara Area,  
          Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.     PETITIONER 


                     VERSUS 


          1.       The State of Maharashtra,  
                   Through in charge Officer,  
                   Police Station Satara, Aurangabad,  
                   Dist. Aurangabad.  

          2.       Anita Suresh Borse,  
                   Age- 38 years, Occ-House Wife,  
                   R/o. Deolai Chowk, Behind Prashant Hotel, 
                   Sai Shakti Apartment, Satara Area,  
                   Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.  
                                                RESPONDENTS

                               ...
          Mr.D.S.Mali, Advocate for the petitioner 
          Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for the Respondent/State
          Mr.N.N.Desale, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                               ...

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

Reserved on : 05.12.2017 Pronounced on : 11.12.2017

648.2017 Cri.WP.odt

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India read with Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed

praying therein to quash and set aside the

First Information Report vide Crime

No.135/2017 registered with Satara Police

Station, Aurangabad, for the offence

punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506

r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Pursuant to the notices issued to

the respondents, respondent no.2 has filed

affidavit. It is stated in the said affidavit

that, the FIR has been lodged against the

petitioner including other 30 persons only

due to misconception or misunderstanding

between the parties. Respondent no.2 and the

648.2017 Cri.WP.odt

petitioner are neighbourers as well as they

have adjacent houses and due to some

temperamental disturbances between the

parties, the FIR has been lodged. Upon

careful perusal of the affidavit, it appears

that, the petitioner and other accused and

also respondent no.2 have agreed to live

happily and peacefully in future, and further

the petitioner has given assurance that,

henceforth he will not cause any disturbance

or annoyance to respondent no.2, and her

family or other adjoining neighbourers

residing in the vicinity, it is prayed that

the FIR may be quashed.

Respondent no.2 is present in the

Court. On specific query to her, she stated

that, it is her voluntary act, without any

coercion to file such affidavit stating

therein that, in view of the amicable

settlement, she does not want to proceed

further with the allegations in the FIR.

648.2017 Cri.WP.odt

Petitioner is also present in the

Court. He assured this Court that, henceforth

he will not cause any disturbance or

annoyance to respondent no.2 and her family

and adjoining neighbourers.

4. In that view of the matter, keeping

in view the exposition of law by the Supreme

Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another1 that, the FIR or criminal

proceedings can be quashed by invoking

inherent powers relying upon the amicable

settlement for two reasons; firstly to secure

ends of justice, and secondly to prevent

abuse of process of law/Court. Since

respondent no.2 has stated in her affidavit

that, the FIR has been lodged only due to

misconception or misunderstanding between the

parties, it is clear that, respondent no.2 is

not going to support the allegations in the

FIR, and therefore, the further investigation

1. 2012 (10) SC Page 303;

648.2017 Cri.WP.odt

will be exercise in futility and wastage of

time. Respondent no.2 is not going to support

the allegations in the FIR, and therefore,

the chances of conviction of the petitioner

would be bleak.

5. In that view of the matter, the

First Information Report vide Crime

No.135/2017 registered with Satara Police

Station, Aurangabad, for the offence

punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506

r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code stands

quashed and set aside. The application is

allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.

6. Rule is made absolute on above

terms. Writ Petition stands disposed of

accordingly.

             [MANGESH S.PATIL]          [S.S.SHINDE]
                 JUDGE                      JUDGE  
          DDC