Ashish S/O. Rambhau Ware And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7041 Bom

                                         1                                      jg.apl 628.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 628 of 2017

(1) Ashish S/o Rambhau Ware
      Aged about 23 years, Occ : Education,
      R/o. Fule Nagar, Pathardi, 
      Tah. Pathardi,  District Ahmednagar.

(2) Rahul S/o Bapu Tupe
      Aged 21 years, Occ. Labour,
      R/o. Male Babhulgaon, 
      Tah. Pathardi,  District Ahmednagar.

(3) Ketan Sahebrao Khade,
      Aged about 20 years, Occ : Education,
      R/o. Sainathnagar, Pathardi, 
      Tah. Pathardi,  District Ahmednagar.

(4) Hanuman S/o Vijay Pardeshi,
      aged about 24 years, Occ : Labour, 
      R/o. Chichpur, Pathardi, 
      Tah. Pathardi,  District Ahmednagar.

(5) Bhujang Sampatrao Garje, 
      aged about 35 years, Occ : Agriculturist, 
      R/o. Akola, Tah. Pathardi,  
      District Ahmednagar.

(6) Ramdas S/o Bhanudas Andhale, 
      aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist, 
      R/o. Jirewadi, Tah. Pathardi,  
      District Ahmednagar.                                                  .... Applicants

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra,
      through Police Station Officer, 
      Police Station, Digras, 
      District Yavatmal. 




                                                                                       .....2/-




::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017                               ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:13:49 :::
                                              2                                      jg.apl 628.17.odt

(2) Sou. Bhosena @ Mohasina Bano Bano Mohd. Jalil, 
      Aged about 40 years, Occ. Household
      R/o. Kalgaon, Tah. Digras, 
      District Yavatmal.                            .... Non-applicants

Shri R. J. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants 
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant 
no. 1
Shri M. Jadhao, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
                                                        
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                     M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                       DATE  : 12-09-2017.

JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal

application is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicants prayed to quash and set aside the charge-

sheet filed by the non-applicant no. 1 for the offence punishable under

Sections 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the complainant lodged the report against

the applicants alleging that husband of the non-applicant no. 2 was

kidnapped by the applicants. It is also alleged that husband of the

complainant taken amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the applicant no. 5 for

providing labour but the complainant has not provided labour for Sugar

.....3/-

                                            3                                      jg.apl 628.17.odt

Factory.     Therefore,   the   applicants   kidnapped   husband   of   the

complainant. On her report, Crime/First Information Report (FIR) No.

158/2015 was registered. The non-applicant no. 1 filed the charge-sheet

before the Court.

4. The non-applicant no. 2 - complainant appeared with her

counsel. She has stated in presence of her counsel that due to

misunderstanding, she lodged the report. The learned counsel for the

applicants has submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served by

keeping the proceedings pending.

5. The learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 submitted

that the parties have settled the matter out of the Court and the non-

applicant no. 2 is not desirous to prosecute the applicants, therefore,

charge-sheet pending before the Sessions Court at Darwha be quashed

and set aside.

6. It is clear from the submissions of the applicants and non-

applicant no. 2 with their respective counsel that they have settled the

matter out of the Court. The complainant has decided not to prosecute

the applicants, therefore, it is clear that she will not depose against the

applicants and there is no possibility of any conviction. Hence, in view of

.....4/-

4 jg.apl 628.17.odt

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 and

Narinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC

466, charge-sheet pending before the District and Session Judge, Darwha

vide Sessions Trial No. 35/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Order

accordingly.

                      JUDGE                                     JUDGE


wasnik




                                                                                      ...../-