Kisan P. Majgaokar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 573 Bom

                                                                       5.wp65-18.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2018



       Shri Kisan P. Majgaokar                              ...Petitioner
               Vs.
       State of Maharashtra
       (at the instance of Dadar Police
       Station, Mumbai), & anr.                             ...Respondents.


                                        ...........

       Mr. Sanjeev Kadam i/by Mr. Prashant P. Raul, Advocate for the 
       petitioner.

       Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.

       Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                        ...........


                        CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.  
                                       AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2018.

5.wp65-18.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. V .K. TAHILRAMANI A.C.J.) :-

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

matter is heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of C.R.No.296 of

1993 pertaining to Dadar Police Station and the proceedings

thereto. The said case is under Section 498-A and 306 of the

Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The said case is pending

before Sessions Court, Mumbai.

3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner/original

accused, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 / original

complainant and learned APP for the State. The complainant is

the son of the petitioner.

4. The complainant is present before the Court. The

complainant stated that he does not wish to pursue the case and

he has filed an affidavit which is taken on record and marked 'X'

for identification. In the said affidavit he states that he has no

complaint against his father. His father is 76 years of age and

5.wp65-18.doc

has already been in custody since 2007. Thus, he has already

undergone maximum sentence as provided under Section 306 of

the IPC. He stated that considering the old age of his father, the

fact that his father has been in custody for over 10 years, and

the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled he does not

wish to proceed with his case against his father.

5. The present case arises out of matrimonial discord

between the deceased and the petitioner/original accused,

hence, it would fall under Guideline (a) as stated in para 45 of

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. Moreover, it is

an admitted fact that the petitioner has already undergone

maximum sentence of imprisonment which could have been

imposed under section 306 of the IPC. It is further seen that the

complainant does not wish to proceed with his case against his

father.

6. Looking to the fact that the complainant, who is the

son of the petitioner/original accused, does not wish to proceed

5.wp65-18.doc

with his case any further, we are of the opinion that no purpose

would be achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the

said case. In this view of the matter, C.R.No. 296 of 1993 and

the proceedings relating thereto are quashed.

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)