Bombay High Court
Balasaheb Mahadev Shirsath And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 May, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.A-1927-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1927 OF 2017
1. Balasaheb Mahadev Shirsath
Age : Major, Occu. Defence Service
2. Ashok Mahadev Shirsath
Age : 39 years, Occu. Agril.
3. Ashok Ramkisan Shirsath
Age : Major, Occu. Agril.
4. Walmik Ramkisan Shirsath
Age : Major, Occu. Agril.
All R/o Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi
Dist. Ahmednagar ...APPLICANTS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
PATHARDI Police Station,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Bappasaheb Uttamrao Shirsath
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agri.,
Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. A.N. Sikchi , Advocate for applicants
Mr. K.D. Munde, APP for Respondent No. 1- State
Mr. K.G. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 3rd MAY, 2017.
JUDGMENT : ( Per: S.S. Shinde, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 Cri.A-1927-17
2. Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, compromise
pursis on behalf of applicants and respondent No. 2 is tendered
by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The same is
taken on record. The applicants and respondent No. 2 are
present in the Court hall. The are identified by their respective
counsel. The applicants and respondent No. 2 have admitted
their signatures and contents of the compromise pursis. It is
stated in the said compromise pursis that applicants and
respondent No. 2 arrived at amicable settlement and they jointly
pray for quashing the impugned FIR bearing crime No. 182 of
2017 registered with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar
for the offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506
read with section 34 of the IPC.
3. We have interacted with applicants and respondent No. 2.
On interaction, respondent No. 2 stated that he is uncle of
applicants and it is his voluntary act to become a party the
compromise pursis is without any coercion or pressure. The
applicants and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the
dispute. We have interacted with applicants, they assures this
Court that henceforth they will not indulged in alleged activities.
Since respondent No. 2 in view of compromise pursis is not going
to support first informant report, continuation of investigation -
proceedings on the basis of crime No.182 of 2017 registered with
3 Cri.A-1927-17
Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence
punishable under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 read with
section 34 of the IPC would be abuse of process of law and no
fruitful purpose would be served. Since respondent No. 2 is not
going to support the allegations, there is bleak chances of
conviction of applicants.
4. Considering the compromise pursis between the parties and
keeping in view the exposition of law of the Supreme Court in the
case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab &
another1 and in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab
and another2, further continuation of investigation - proceedings
based upon crime would be abuse of process of law and wastage
of time of the prosecution agency and the Court. In that view of
the matter, we are inclined to allow this application. Accordingly,
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C". The
impugned FIR stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
1. (2014) 6 SCC 466
2 (2012)10 SCC 303
