Bombay High Court
Mr. Rohan S/O. Chandrashekhar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 apl546.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.546 OF 2017
Rohan s/o. Chandrashekhar
Vishwakarma, Aged 20 years,
Occ. Student, r/o. Inspection
Bungalow, Defence Residency,
Ambazari, Nagpur. .......... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Wadi,
Nagpur.
2.Jitendra s/o. Mangalram
Suryawanshi, Aged about 40
years, Occ. Service, r/o.8/59/1,
Defence Residency, Ambazari,
Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:46 :::
2 apl546.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.S.Wathore, Advocate with Mr.Ananta Ramteke,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.C.A.Lokhande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12.10.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally
with the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicants.
2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed
to quash and set aside First Information Report No.603 of 2016,
dt.18.7.2016 lodged by respondent no.2 and Charge sheet No.189 of
2016, dt.7.11.2016 and the proceedings in S.C.C. No.18073 of 2016.
It is submitted that the applicant is a student of B.E. (Final Year).
There was an accident. Respondent no.2 sustained injuries.
Respondent no.2 is well-conversant with the applicant. They have
sorted out their disputes out of Court and reached to amicable
settlement. Respondent no.2 is compensated by the applicant in
3 apl546.17.odt
terms of money. Applicant has paid Rs.80,000/- to the
complainant/respondent no.2 for his medical expenses. Moreover,
another victim namely Nitin Namdeorao Shete has also received
Rs.1,20,000/- for his medical expenses. It is submitted that, in view
of Settlement, the First Information Report and consequent
proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Applicant and respondent no.2 are present before us
with their respective Counsel i.e. Mr.P.S.Wathore, learned Counsel
for the applicant and Mr.C.A.Lokhande, learned Additional Public
prosecutor for Respondent/State.
5. Respondent No.2 has stated before us that he has
received an amount of Rs.80,000/-. He does not want to prosecute
the applicant.
6. Offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code is non-compoundable. Looking to the submissions of both
the parties, it is clear that the complainant/respondent no.2 will not
depose against the applicant. Keeping the criminal proceedings
pending is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, in
4 apl546.17.odt
view of Judgment in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs.
State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , F.I.R. No.603 of
2016, dt.18.7.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134, 177
of Motor Vehicles Act and Charge sheet No.189 of 2016,
dt.7.11.2016 and the proceedings in S.C.C. No.18073 of 2016 are
liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Hence, we allow the Criminal Application in terms of the
prayer clauses (i) and (ii) in the application and quash and set aside
F.I.R. No.603 of 2016, dt.18.7.2016 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 134, 177 of Motor Vehicles Act and Charge sheet
No.189 of 2016, dt.7.11.2016 and the proceedings in S.C.C.
No.18073 of 2016
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
5 apl546.17.odt
