Jagdish Suresh Shirsath vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 2163 Bom

                               1                                Cri.A-1934-17




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1934 OF 2017

 Jagdish Suresh Shirsath
 Age : 33 years, Occu. Agril.
 R/o Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi
 Dist. Ahmednagar.                                      ...APPLICANT

          versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Police Inspector,
          PATHARDI Police Station,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.

 2.       Ashok Mahadeo Shirsath
          Age : 39 years, Occu. Agri.,
          Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi
          Dist. Ahmednagar.                            ...RESPONDENTS

                                 .....
 Mr. A.K. Bhosale , Advocate for applicant
 Mr. K.D. Munde, APP for Respondent state
 Mr. A.N. Sikchi, 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. Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, compromise

pursis on behalf of applicant and respondent No. 2 is placed on

2 Cri.A-1934-17

record, the applicant and respondent No. 2 are present in the

Court hall. They are identified by their respective counsel. The

applicant and respondent No. 2 have admitted their signatures

and contents of compromise pursis.

3. We have interacted with applicant and respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 stated that it is his voluntary act to become a

party the compromise pursis without any coercion or pressure.

The applicant and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the

dispute. We have also interacted with applicant, he assures this

Court that henceforth he 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. 180 of 2017 registered

with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence

punishable under sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 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 in the FIR, there is bleak chances of conviction of the

applicant.

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 &

3 Cri.A-1934-17

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