Vijay Rambhau Dhoble And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17664 Bom

                                                                     cran2754.21
                                     -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  62 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2754 OF 2021

                  VIJAY RAMBHAU DHOBLE AND ANOTHER
                                    VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                      .....
                 Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ade Ravindra B.
                  APP for Respondent-State: Mr. R.D. Sanap
                 Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V.P. Raje
                                     .....

                               CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                       SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 20th DECEMBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

1 Heard.

2. The applicants are seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing No. 398

of 2021 registered with Bidkin police station, District Aurangabad for

the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of

I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest

of Depositors Act.

3. In para 61 of the judgment in the case of Gian Singh vs. State

of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme

Court has observed that before exercise of power under Section 482

of Cr.P.C., the High Court must have due regard to the nature and

gravity of the crime. The Supreme Court further considered that

heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like

cran2754.21

murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though

the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.

It is also observed by the Supreme court that such offences are not

private in nature and have serious impact on society. It is also

observed that similarly, any compromise between the victim and

offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public

servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any

basis for quashing of criminal proceedings involving such offences.

4. In view of the observations of the Supreme court in the above

cited case, we have expressed our disinclination to entertain this

application. However, leaned counsel for the applicants and learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 seek time to make

appropriate submissions on the next date of hearing.

5. It is not out of place to mention here that the learned A.P.P. at

this stage has pointed out to us that the informant in this case is not

the sole depositor but there are other persons, who have deposited

the amount with the applicants-accused.

6. Stand over to 20.01.2022.

(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/