Niraj S/O Mahavir Gadiya And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 95 Bom

                               1                                 Cri.A-6288-16


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6288 OF 2016

 Niraj Mahavir Gadiya
 Age: 15 years, Occ. Student (11th Standard)
 pursuing his education at Shriman P.H.
 Jain Science (Sr.) and Shriman Pemrajaji
 Dalichandji Surana Arts, Commerce &
 Science Jr. College, Neminagar,
 Chandwad - 423 101. Dist: Nashik
 Permanent Resident of
 Sansthan Ganpati, Sadhana Apartment,
 Raja Bajar Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

 Through his Natural Guardian
 Shri. Mahavir Sampatraj Gadiya,
 Age: 50 years, Occu. Business,
 Resident of Sansthan Ganpati, Sadhana
 Apartment, Raja Bajar Aurangabad(Mah.)                 ...APPLICANT

          versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          At the instance of
          Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad,
          Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.


 2.       Mr. Santosh S/o Sudhakar Sonawane,
          Age: 22 years, Occu: Student,
          (Pursuing- Second year- B.C.A.)
          resident of Laghuvetan Colony,
          Dange Classes, Mukundwadi,
          Aurangabad, Maharashtra.                     ...RESPONDENTS

                                 ....
 Mr. A.D. Ostwal, Advocate for applicant
 Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent State
 Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent no. 2
                                ....

                                   CORAM :    S.S. SHINDE AND
                                              K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 27th FEBRUARY, 2017.

2 Cri.A-6288-16

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and APP for the

respondent No. 1 - State and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No. 2.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the

consent of the parties.

3. Pursuant to notices issued to the respondents, applicant and

respondent No. 2 has filed joint compromise pursis dated

18-01-2017 on record. Respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit-in-

reply and additional affidavit in-reply. It is stated in the joint

compromise pursis that, the incident occurred on 09-11-2016 and

during the pendencny of present application, the parties have

arrived at compromise as they have amicably settled their dispute.

The said joint compromise pursis is signed by the applicant and

respondent No. 2 duly verified before the Registrar (Judicial) of this

Court. The parties are identified by their respective learned Counsel.

4. Respondent No. 2 has filed additional affidavit in-reply on

record. It is stated in said reply that, since he had lost his chain on

the date of incident, therefore, after the altercation he was

frightened in the night, and therefore, immediately lodged the first

information report (for short "FIR"), however, when along with his

friend he again went to the place of incident to search the golden

chain, he found the same on the spot of incident. He did not

3 Cri.A-6288-16

further persuade the first information report as the matter is

amicably settled between them.

5. We have interacted with applicant and respondent No. 2, who

are present in the Court. The applicant and respondent No. 2 have

stated that they have voluntarily entered into the compromise and

filed the joint compromise pursis and additional affidavit-in-reply. It

is stated in the joint compromise pursis that, they have decided to

settled their dispute amicably without any coercion or pressure and

pray to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and

also on perusal of the avertments in the affidavit-in-reply and

additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is

abundantly clear that the ingredients of sections 394 of the IPC are

not attracted/disclosed. The other alleged offences are punishable

under sections 323, 324, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Since respondent No. 2 - first informant voluntary filed

affidavit-in-reply, additional affidavit-in-reply and joint compromise

pursis and prays to quash and set aside the FIR, no fruitful purpose

would be served in case the proceeding on the basis of crime

bearing No. 0904 of 2016 registered with Cidco Police Station,

Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections 394, 323,

324, and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is

allowed to be continued.

4 Cri.A-6288-16

7. In light of the discussion herein-above and keeping in view

the expositions of law in the cases of Gian Singh Vs State of

Punjab and another1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab2

and Shiji Alias Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another 3 we

are inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, application is

allowed in terms of prayer Clause "C", which reads as under.

"[C] That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to quash and set aside the crime / F.I.R.

Registered vide F.I.R. No. 0904/2016 dated

10-11-2016 with CIDCO Police Station,

Aurangabad under Section 394, 324, 323, 504,

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860."

8. Criminal Application is allowed in above terms. Rule is made

absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-

        [ K. K. SO NAWANE, J. ]                        [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]


 MTK




 1 (2012)10 SCC 303
 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466
 3 (2011) 10 SCC 705