Sunil Ratanlal Bhandari And 8 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Wani And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11697 Bom

                                            1                     30-apl-838-20j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 838 OF 2020

  1. Sunil Ratanlal Bhandari,
     Aged 59 years,

  2. Vimalbai Ratanlal Bhandari,
     Aged 82 years,

  3. Nanda Ashok Bhandari,
     Aged 59 years,

  4. Usha Sunil Bhandari,
     Aged 56 years,

  5. Nira Anil Bhandari,
     Aged 50 years,

  6. Navin Ratanlal Bhandari,
     Aged 49 years,

  7. Manisha Navin Bhandari,
     Aged 46 years,

  8. Amrita Ashok Bhandari,
     Aged 37 years,

  9. Ashok Ratanlal Bhandari,
     Aged 62 years,

      All R/o. Tagore Chowk,
      Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.                             . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station, Wani

  2. Anand Haribhau Bodhale,
     R/o. Village Ganeshpur,
     Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.                        . . NON-APPLICANTS




::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2021 23:19:25 :::
                                               2                               30-apl-838-20j.odt

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rizwan Ali, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P. P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Shri Shailesh Shahu, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 24.08.2021

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of the

First Information Report (FIR) No. M1/2008, dated 24.04.2008

registered with the non-applicant no. 1- Police Station for the offence

punishable under Sections 467, 468, 417, 471, 472, 420 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent charge-sheet

bearing RCC No. 117/2009, pending before Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Wani.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

accusation that the applicants had forged the papers of agricultural

land of the non-applicant no. 2 and took loan of ₹ 20 lakhs from the 20 lakhs from the

bank on the basis of the said papers. The Investigating Agency carried

3 30-apl-838-20j.odt

out the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicants and

proceeding bearing RCC No. 117/2009 is pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Wani.

5. During the pendency of the criminal proceeding, the

applicants have settled the dispute with the non-applicant no. 2 and

therefore, filed the present application challenging registration of the

FIR and filing of charge-sheet against the applicants. The non-

applicant no. 2 has filed affidavit dated 23.08.2021, stating that the

applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 have already entered into an

agreement on 07.10.2017 and he has agreed to give his no-objection

for setting aside the criminal proceeding against the applicants.

6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR

and material in the form of charge-sheet. On overall consideration of

the material produced on record, it appears that dispute between the

applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 is essentially a civil dispute.

Special Civil Suit No. 27/2006 seeking declaration and possession was

filed against the applicants by the non-applicant no. 2. The said suit

was settled between the parties. By judgment and order dated

13.11.2017, the said suit has been dismissed as withdrawn in view of

the compromise between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2.

4 30-apl-838-20j.odt

7. We, therefore, satisfied that the dispute between the

applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 being essentially a civil dispute

and the parties have settled the matter hence, the chances of

conviction of the applicants are bleak.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.

State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it

is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely

personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of

compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive

with no possibility of conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury

which Courts, grossly over-burdened, as they are, cannot afford and

the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and

meaningful litigation.

9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no

impediment in quashing the FIR and proceedings against the

applicants. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

First Information No. M1/2008, dated 24.04.2008

registered with the non-applicant no. 1- Police Station against the

applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 417,

471, 472, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

5 30-apl-838-20j.odt

consequent charge-sheet bearing RCC No. 117/2009 pending before

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE




RR Jaiswal