Taslim Begum Tayyeb Qureshi And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 935 Bom

                                               6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                     1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6417 OF 2016

          1.       Taslim Begum Tayyeb Qureshi 
                   w/o Tayyeb Jainulabedin Qureshi 
                   Age: 42 years, Occu:Housewife, 
                   R/o. 1/2527, Near Vitthal Mandir,  
                   Lota Karanja, Dist. Aurangabad.  

          2.       Wasim Mohmmad Akhtar 
                   Age: Major, Occu : Business,  
                   R/o.7/73, Rajendra Nagar,  
                   Sahibabad, Gaziyabad,  
                   Uttar Pradesh.                APPLICANTS

                           VERSUS 

          1.       The State of Maharashtra 
                   Through Police Station,  
                   Jinsi, Dist. Aurangabad.  

          2.       The Dy. Commissioner of Police 
                   Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.  

          3.       Station House Officer,  
                   Police Station, Jinsi,  
                   Dist. Aurangabad.  

          4.       Investigation Officer,  
                   Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad 

          5.       Tayyeb s/o Jainulabedin Qureshi 
                   Age: 45 Years, Occu: Business 
                   R/o. 1/2527, Near Vitthal Mandir,  
                   Lota Karanja, Dist. Aurangabad.  

          6.       Aasia d/o. Yunis Khan,  
                   Age: Major, Occu: Household,  
                   R/o. [1] Kazbari Darga, Padegaon 
                   Aurangabad




::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:16:53 :::
                                                          6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                           2


                   [2] Diamond Function Hall,  
                   Juna Bazar, City Chowk,  
                   Aurangabad.                  RESPONDENTS 

                                 ...
          Mr.A.R.Barate, Advocate for the applicants
          Mr.Satej   S.   Jadhav,   Advocate   holding   for 
          Mr.A.K.Bhosale, Advocate for respondent nos.5 
          and 6. 
          Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, APP for Respondent Nos.1  to 
          4 / State
                                 ...
                           CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                    K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.     

Reserved on : 17.03.2017 Pronounced on : 22.03.2017

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

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

3. This Application is filed with the

following prayer:

A] To quash and set aside the FIR Crime

No.195/2016 dtd. 12.5.2016 for the

offence punishable U/sec. 354-A,

6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

392, r/w. 34 of the IPC registered

with Jinsi Police Station,

Aurangabad against the Applicant.

4. Pursuant to the notices issued to

the respondents, applicant no.1 and

respondent no.5 have filed compromise pursis.

The said compromise pursis is signed by

applicant nos.1 and 2 and respondent nos.5

and 6. The parties were referred to the

Registrar [Judicial] for verification of the

terms of the settlement/compromise.

Applicant nos.1 and 2 and also respondent

nos.5 and 6 appeared before the Registrar

[Judicial]. The parties were identified by

the advocates appearing for them. It appears

that the contents of compromise pursis read

over and explained to the applicants and

respondent nos.5 and 6 in vernacular and they

have admitted the same as true and correct.

We have also interacted with applicant nos.1

and 2 and respondent nos.5 and 6. There is no

6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

doubt that it is voluntary act of the

applicants and private respondents to enter

into compromise.

5. We have carefully perused the

investigation papers. Though there is

allegation of offence punishable under

Sections 354 [A], 392 r/w. 34 of the IPC, it

appears that the same is exaggerated version.

Upon perusal of the compromise pursis duly

sworn and verified before the Registrar

[Judicial], it appears that applicant no.1

and respondent no.6 have filed cases against

each other. They have decided not to proceed

with those cases and withdraw the same, in

view of the compromise pursis. As already

observed, the said compromise pursis is on

record and duly verified before the Registrar

[Judicial].

6. In that view of the matter, since an

informant has decided not to proceed with the

6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

further investigation/proceedings arising out

of the FIR bearing Crime No.195/2016

registered with Jinsi Police Station,

Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under

Sections 354-A, 392 r/w. 34 of the IPC, no

fruitful purpose would be served by

continuing the further investigation/

proceedings, arising out of the FIR bearing

Crime No.195/2016, registered with Jinsi

Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences

punishable under Sections 354-A, 392 r/w. 34

of the IPC.

7. Keeping in view the exposition of

law by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another 1, and

also in the case of Narinder Singh & others

Vs. State of Punjab & another2, so as to

prevent abuse of process of law, we are

inclined to allow this Application.

1 2012 AIR SCW 5333

2. 2014 AIR SCW 2065

6417.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

8. Accordingly, Criminal Application is

allowed in terms of prayer clause-A. Rule is

made absolute on above terms and the Criminal

Application stands disposed of.

                                         


              [K.K.SONAWANE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC