Govind Gehimal Mirpuri And 2 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11898 Bom

                                                    1          Cri.APL No.583.21-J.odt

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

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 583 OF 2021

 1.     Govind Gehimal Mirpuri,
        Aged about 74 years, Occu. Business.

 2.     Manoj Govind Mirpuri,
        Aged about 43 years, Occu. Business.

 3.     Anand Govind Mirpuri,
        Aged about 39 years, Occu. Business,
        All R/o. Kamal Nayan, Mount Road,
        Sadar, Nagpur.                                           ......APPLICANTS

                      ... VERSUS ...

 1.     State of Maharashtra,
        Through Police Station Officer,
        Sakkardara Police Station,
        Nagpur.

 2.     Anup Omprakash Khandelwal,
        Aged about 46 years, Occu. Business,
        R/o. 92, Ramdaspeth, Lendra Park,
        Nagpur.                              ......NON-APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the Applicants.
 Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No.1.
 Shri V. S. Mirshra, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        CORAM :            V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

          DATE        :    26.08.2021.

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

 1.            Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

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

Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of

the First Information Report No.214/2015 dated 26.08.2015

registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants in

collusion with each other have prepared forge documents

resulting into wrongful loss to the non-applicant No.2. The

Investigating Agency after completion of the investigation filed

charge-sheet against the applicants. The applicants have therefore

challenged registration of the First Information Report against

them by way of present application on the ground that during the

pendency of the investigation, the parties have resolved their

dispute and have settled issue involved between them.

5. This Court on 24.06.2021 issued notice to the

non-applicants. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply stating

that the Investigating Agency has carried out the investigation and

there is sufficient material available with the Investigation Agency

for the offences alleged against the applicants. The applicants and

the non-applicant No.2 have filed Criminal Application (APL)

No. 1397/2021 requesting to set aside the First Information

Report against the applicants. It is stated in the said application

that the applicants have resolved their dispute. The applicants

have annexed copy of Compromise Deed entered into in the Court

of Civil Judge Senior Division -14, Nagpur.

6. Today, when the matter is called out, the applicants and

the non-applicant No.2 are present in the Court. The applicants

and the non-applicant No.2 stated before the Court that they have

mutually resolved their dispute amicably and therefore, the

non-applicant No.2 has no objection for quashing the Criminal

Proceedings against the applicants.

7. On careful consideration of the allegations in the First

Information Report and the material produced by the Investigating

Agency, we are satisfied that the offences alleged against the

applicants are personal in nature.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 the

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

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

meaningful litigation.

9. In view of amicable settlement of dispute between the

applicants and the non-applicant No.2, we are satisfied that there

is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings against the

applicants.

10. We therefore, pass following order :

The First Information Report No.214/2015 dated

26.08.2015 registered against the applicants with the

non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                           JUDGE                                           JUDGE



RGurnule