Bombay High Court
Shri. Gautam S/O. Bajirao Chavhan ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Office ... on 29 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 apl731.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 731 OF 2017
1. Gautam s/o. Bajirao Chavhan,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.
Service, r/o. Plot No.5/86,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Savita d/o. Suryabhan Niratkar,
(@ Smt. Savita w/o. Ravi Chavre)
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. Police Line Takli, Katol Road,
Nagpur. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Officer-In-Charge,
Police Station, Gittikhadan,
Tq. and Distt. Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2017 01:03:22 :::
2 apl731.17
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Nitin R. Bhishikar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.A.M.Deshpande, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 29th November, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. G. Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally
with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present application, both the applicants have
prayed to quash Criminal Proceedings vide SCC No.1888/2013
pending before the learned 9 th Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 385, 294,
506, 509 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Both the applicants have submitted that applicant no.1
is a dignified member of the Society. He is serving with Police
department since the last 23 years and presently, he is posted with
3 apl731.17
SRPF Group 4, Nagpur. Applicant no.2 is serving with the Police
department. At present, she is posted as a Clerk in the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Katol Road, Nagpur. On 29.9.2011,
applicant no.2 lodged the report against applicant no.1. After
investigation, Summary Criminal Case No.1888 of 2012 is instituted
against applicant no.1 before 9th Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nagpur.
4. Applicant no.2 alleged in the report that, in the year
2005, applicant no.1 was posted as a Clerk in the Office of Police
Commissioner, Nagpur. Applicant no.2 was working at Police Control
Room in Computer Section. By virtue of official work, applicant no.1
used to have contact with applicant no.2. He was required to visit at
her Office frequently. It is alleged that cordial relations were
developed between both the applicants. However, applicant no.1
tried to take undue advantage of the same. Allegedly, in the year
2009, one day, applicant no.1 met applicant no.2 near Ajni Railway
Bridge, Nagpur. Applicant no.1 insisted applicant no.2 to accompany
him for having a cup of coffee. Applicant no.2 accompanied
applicant no.1. It is further alleged by applicant no.2 that, in spite of
having coffee, applicant no.1 ordered cold drink and after consuming
4 apl731.17
the same, applicant no.2 started feeling giddy. Thereafter, applicant
no.1 took applicant no.2 in his car to one room and tried to outrage
her modesty.
5. Applicant no.2 also alleged that applicant no.1 was also
demanding money from applicant no2 and was threatening and
blackmailing her.
6. Applicant no.2 lodged report against applicant no.1 on
29.9.2011. Crime No.318 of 2011 came to be registered against
applicant no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 385,
294, 506, 509 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. It is submitted that the Authorities of Police Station,
Gittikhadan completed investigation and submitted charge sheet
against applicant no.1 on 23.1.2012 for the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 385, 294, 506, 509 and 352 of the Indian Penal
Code.
8. Summary Criminal Case No.1888 of 2012 came to be
registered in the Court of 9th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.
5 apl731.17
9. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 have resolved their grievances by
mutual discussion. Applicant no.2 does not intend to proceed with
the complaint lodged by her. Applicant no.1 is now aged about 48
years and is having two children aged about 13 and 8 years. The
daughters of applicant no.1 are suffering from Sickle Cell disease.
During the intervening period, there has been discussion amongst the
family members of applicant nos. 1 and 2. On the request of family
members of applicant no.1, both the parties have removed their
grievances.
10. Both the applicants have submitted that now they have
removed all the misunderstanding between them by mutual
discussion. Applicant no.2 is leading a happy marital life. Her
children are also grown up. She does not intend to proceed further
with the complaint lodged by her against applicant no.1.
11. It is submitted that offences punishable under Sections
294 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable and
therefore, the applicants have approached this Court to quash the
Criminal proceedings.
6 apl731.17
12. Today, both the applicants are present with their
Counsel Mr.Nitin Bhishikar. We have asked applicant no.2 about her
grievance. She has stated before us that, due to misunderstanding,
report was lodged against applicant no.1. In view of mutual
settlement between applicant nos. 1 and 2, keeping the Criminal case
pending is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Other offences are
compoundable. But offences punishable under Sections 294 and 385
of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. Looking to the
settlement between applicant no.2 and applicant no.1, applicant no.2
will not depose against applicant no.1. There is no possibility of
termination of the Criminal proceedings into conviction. Hence, in
view of the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and
Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, we are inclined to allow the application.
Hence, we pass the following order.
7 apl731.17
// ORDER //
The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (i) thereof, which reads as under :
(i) Quash the criminal proceedings vide SCC
No.1888/2013 pending before the learned 9th Jt.
Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Nagpur for the offences under Section
354, 385, 294, 506, 509, 352 of I.P.C. "
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
8 apl731.17
