Bombay High Court
Suresh Walchandra Rajput And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by 1/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
Vishwanath
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.02.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
12:01:07 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 703 OF 2021
1. Mr. Suresh Walchandra Rajput
Age- 48 years, Occu- Labour.
2. Mr. Amar Suresh Rajput
Age- 30 years, Occ- Driver.
3. Kiran Sukhdev Rajput
Age- 26 years, Occ- Home Guard.
4. Ajit @ Ajay Kashinath Rajput
Age- 24 years, Occ- Student.
5. Kashinath Walchand Rajput
Age- 56 years, Occ- Agriculturist.
6. Sagar Suresh Rajput
Age- 24 years, Occ- Labour.
7. Amol Kashinath Rajput
Age- 29 years, Occ- Business.
8. Swapnil Anil Rajput
Age- 19 years, Occ- Education.
9. Kamal Suresh Rajput
Age- 47 years, Occ- Housewife
All above R/o. Shivaji Nagar Tanda,
Kegaon Tal North Solapur,
Dist. Solapur.
10. Neeta Ravi Chavan @ Rathod
Age- 27 years, Occ- Housewife,
L.T. No. 1 Savalsang, Tal, Indi,
Dist. Vijaypur.
11. Shantabai Kashinath Rajput
Age- 54 years, Occ- Housewife.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
12. Anil Walchand Rajput
Age- 44 years, Occ- Business
R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Tanda,
Village Kegaon, Solapur City
Dist. Solapur. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Fauzdar Chavdi
Police Station, Solaupr.
2. Mr. Sunil Sadashiv Bansode
Age- 40 years, Occ- Labour,
R/o. Near Zilla Parishad School,
Taluka- Kegaon, North Solapur,
District- Solapur. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Viresh V. Purwant for petitioners.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for State.
Ms. Barsha Parulekar for Respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th FEBRUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned APP
appearing for Respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for
Bhagyawant Punde
3/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
Respondent No. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and Respondent No. 2 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has
tendered across the bar, affidavit of Respondent No. 2, the same is taken on
record. Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court and stated that it is his
voluntary act to enter into the settlement and join the prayer of petitioners for
quashing the FIR. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, registered with Fauzdar Chavdi Police Station, Solapur.
4. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2
reads as under-
1. I say that on the basis of FIR dated 28.12.2020 lodged
by me with Fauzdar Chavdi Police Station, offence U/sec.
143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 406, 420, 467, 468 r/w. 34 of IPC was registered
against Petitioners vide CR No. 1310 of 2020.
2. I say that, I have no any grievance of whatsoever
nature against any of the Petitioners. After registration of
F.I.R., I subsequently realised that I should not have lodged
the F.I.R. out of anger and under the misconception of
implication of myself as accused along with accused persons
in C.R. No. 1309 of 2020. After registration of offence
against the Petitioners on the basis of the complaint lodged
by myself I approached the concerned Investigating Officer
Bhagyawant Punde
4/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
and expressed my intention/willingness to withdraw the
F.I.R. and all the allegations leveled therein. Recently, I
approached the Petitioners and informed the Petitioners that
he does not want to pursue my complaint any more.
3. I say that the Petitioners and myself resides in the same
village since their fore-fathers. There had never been any
such incident occurred in the said village in the past. Due to
registration of offence, the relations between the villagers
and particularly the family of Petitioners and myself are
disturbed. In such circumstances, all of us decided to put an
end to the dispute between us and burry the short time enmity
once and for all.
4. I say that the settlement between the parties is amicable
and free from any pressure, coercion or inducement and is at
free will.
5. It is true that the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is
serious offence, however, injury sustained by victim are not of serious nature
which would attract an ingredients of an alleged offence under Section 326 of
IPC. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and Respondent No.
2 has filed affidavit and stated before this Court that he is not interested to
support the allegations in the FIR and to continue with the further
investigation of aforesaid crime, the chances of conviction of petitioners
would be remote and bleak. No fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing the further investigation/proceeding arising out of C.R. No. 1309
of 2020 registered with Fauzdar Chavdi Police Station, for the offences
Bhagyawant Punde
5/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Such continuation of further investigation/proceeding would tantamount to
the abuse of the process of the law/Court.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab
and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising
out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. It is further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with
no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court.
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Bhagyawant Punde
6/6 CRWP-703-2021-J.doc
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping
in view the allegations made in the FIR which would certainly not attract
ingredients of Section 326 of IPC, we are of the opinion that the impugned
order deserves to be quashed on the basis of amicable settlement between the
petitioners and Respondent No. 2. It appears that the alleged incident is
isolated incident as stated by Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit. Respondent
No. 2 realises that he lodged the said FIR out of anger and under
misconception and with the intervention of well wishers of both sides both
the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, which according to
Respondent No. 2 is without any coercion or inducement.
8. In view of discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ
petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The C.R. No. 1309 of 2020
for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 147, 149, 323, 326, 504, 506
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with Fauzdar Chavadi Police Station,
Solarpur, is quashed. Rule made absolute to above terms. The writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
