Bombay High Court
Mukesh S/O. Kundan Bodele vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 apl206.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 206 OF 2017
Mukesh Kundan Bodele,
aged about 26 years, Occupation
Private Service, R/o C/o Shri
Gedam, Bhamti Parsodi,
Pratapnagar, Nagpur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station
Officer, Police Station, Rana
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Sheetal d/o Sheshraoji Bhumbar,
aged about 19 years, Occupation
Education, R/o C/o Shri Devram
Chimote, Plot No.22, Pathan
Layout, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri S.P. Sonwane, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Shri Karan Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present application is moved under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet No.
2 apl206.17
35/2014, dated 13.03.2014 filed in Crime No. 37/2014 for the offence
punishable under Section 345(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending in the
Special Court, Nagpur.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he is falsely implicated in Crime
No. 37 of 2014 by Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station, Nagpur for the offence
punishable under Section 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code. On 19.01.2014,
the complainant/non-applicant No.2 lodged a report alleging that while she
used to go to the shop, one unknown person used to follow her and used to
propose her for marriage. On her report, crime came to be registered. It is
further submitted that though the non-applicant No.2 lodged the report, the
applicant never crossed his limit and committed any act which attracted
penal provision. The matter is amicable settled between the applicant and
non-applicant No.2. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the applicant prays
to quash and set aside the charge sheet in Special Case No. 33 of 2014
pending before the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur.
4. Heard the learned Counsel and the learned APP appearing on
behalf of the respective parties. The non-applicant No.2 is personally
present before this Court. She has filed an affidavit and stated that she does
not want to prosecute the applicant and the applicant resolved the grievance
amicably, therefore, prays to quash and set aside the charge sheet pending
before the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur in Special Case No.33/2014.
3 apl206.17
5. We have personally asked non-applicant No.2. She has stated
that due to misunderstanding, a report was lodged. She does not want to
prosecute the applicant.
6. In view of the compromise between the parties and in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh .v. State of Punjab
(reported in 2012(9) Scale, 257, this Court can quash and set aside the
charge sheet.
7. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
The Charge sheet No. 35/2014, dated 13.03.2014 in Crime No. 37 of 2014 is
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg.
