Rahul S/O Kamalchand Surana vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Midc Tah. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17643 Bom

                                                   1                      Cri.APL No.1374-21.doc

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

          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1374 OF 2021

Rahul S/o. Kamalchand Surana
(Husband)
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Job,
R/o. D-19-20, Shailendra Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.)                                                        ... APPLICANT

                 ----VERSUS----

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station - MIDC,
      Tahsil & District - Nagpur.

2.    The Superintendent,
      State Criminal Investigation
      Department (CID),
      Office at CID Regional Head
      Quarter Building at Police Line,
      Takli, Nagpur.

3.    Kirtika W/o. Rahul Surana,
      Aged about 36 years, Occ. Pvt. Service,
      R/o. Flat No.101, Plot No.7A,
      "Pioneer Green Valley" Hazaripahad,
      Katol Road, Nagpur -13.                 .. NON-APPLICANTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Ahmad, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. M. A. Barabde, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State.
Ms Payal Lunawat, Advocate for Non-applicant No.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CORAM:            M. S. SONAK AND
                          PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE: 20.12.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER M. S. SONAK, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the

request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the

parties.

3. Mr. Rahul Surana and Kirtika Surana are also present in

this Court.

4. This is an application for quashing of First Information

Report/Crime No.191/2014 dated 24.07.2014, Charge-sheet

No.23/2015 dated 02.02.2015, Charge-sheet No.23(A)/2018

dated 18.05.2018 and also R. C. C. No. 735/2015 pending in the

Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur.

5. The learned counsel for the parties as well as parties

themselves state that they have filed terms of compromise before

the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision

No.15/2019.

6. We have perused the terms of compromise. According

to us, the parties have not taken sufficient measures to protect the

interest of Arnav, who is reported to be only 10 years old at

present. We think that the amount which is stated in the

compromise terms, will not be sufficient to take care of Arnav's

educational and other needs in the future. This is despite the

statement by Kirtika that she intends to use the amounts which

are to be paid to her in terms of the compromise basically for the

welfare of Arnav.

7. Today, Mr. Rahul Surana, who is present in the Court

has made a statement before us, as given an undertaking, that he

will deposit further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision

No.15/2019. According to us, this amount will have to be

maintained in an appropriate fixed deposit instrument, if

necessary, in the name of Arnav, Rahul and Kirtika so that Arnav

can get this amount together with accrued interest after he attain

majority.

8. Mr. Rahul Surana states that some time may be granted

to make this deposit. He requests for three months time for this

purpose. According to us, the request made by Mr. Rahul Surana

is quite reasonable.

9. Kirtika, who has appeared before us, has stated that she

stands by the terms of the compromise and has no objection if the

First Information Report, Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings

initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed by this Court.

10. Since, Kirtika has co-operated with the applicant and

has stood by the terms of compromise, there is no reason as to

why she should not be permitted to withdraw the balance amount

of Rs.40,00,000/- deposited by the applicant from the Additional

Sessions Court. The statement of Kirtika that she will utilize this

amount mainly for the welfare of Arnav is also recorded and

accepted.

11. In such a matter, we expect both the parents to co-

operate with each other, at least, on issue of the welfare of their

son Arnav.

12. Having regard to the terms of the compromise, the

undertaking given by Rahul Surana to this Court and the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and

Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675,

we see no difficulty in accepting the joint request made by the

applicant Rahul and non-applicant No.3 Kirtika for quashing of

the impugned First Information Report, Charge-sheet and criminal

proceedings launched in pursuance thereof.

13. However, we make it clear that this order for quashing

will take effect only after applicant Rahul deposits an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- in the Court of learned District and Sessions

Judge, Nagpur within three months from today. Once this amount

is deposited, the parties can decide about the modalities of

investment in the fixed deposit. If any directions are needed, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur taking up Criminal

Revision No.15/2019 can always issue the same keeping in mind

the interest of Arnav.

14. At this stage, we make it clear that if there is a default in

depositing Rs.10,00,000/- withing three months from today then,

this application will be deemed to have been dismissed without

any further reference to this Court together with costs of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, notwithstanding the dismissal of this

application, the terms of compromise recorded in the civil

proceedings will operate and Kirtika will not be required to refund

the amount which she has already withdraw in terms of the

compromise in the civil proceedings.

15. The criminal proceedings will, however, continue on

account of deemed dismissal of this application.

16. The learned counsel for the applicant as also applicant

Rahul states that they will file necessary undertaking regarding

deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- within three months before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision

No.15/2019 today itself. The copy of such undertaking to be

provided to non-applicant No.3 or the counsel appearing for non-

applicant No.3. The undertaking will have to be consistent with

what has been stated and undertaken before us today.

17. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

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

19. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

order.

(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)

RGurnule

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:20.12.2021 16:00