Dushant Narsinghrao Shinde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 135 Bom

                                                         44. wpst 5378.20.doc

Urmila Ingale

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 5378 OF 2020


        1. Dushant Narsinghrao Shinde
        Age : 45 years, Occup : service and agri,
        R/at : Kanherkhed, Tal : Koregaon,
        Dist. Satara

        2. Adhinath Vishnu Anubule
        Age : Adult, , Occup : service and agri,
        R/at : Anubulewadi, Tal : Koregaon,
        Dist : Satara

        3. Rajendra Goraknath Phand
        Age : adult, Occup : Agri and service
        R/at : Bhose, Tal : Koregaon,
        Dist : Satara

        4. Ganesh Bajirao Jagadale,
        Age : adult, Occup : Agri and service
        R/at : Kumthe, Tal : Koregaon,
        Dist : Satara.

        5. Vijay Eknath Jadhav,
        Age : adult, occup : Agri and Service
        R/at Jalgaon, Tal : Koregaon,
        Dist : Satara                                    ....Petitioners

                 Vs.

        1. State of Maharashtra
        Through Police inspector,
        Koregaon Police Station,
        Tal : Koregaon, Dist :Satara

        2. Vijay Ramrao Jagadale,
        Age : adult, Occup :service
        R/at :Quarter No.4, Jarendeshwar Sugar Mills
        Pvt. Ltd., Chimangaon, Tal: Koregaon,
        Dist : Satara                                  .. Respondents

44. wpst 5378.20.doc

Mr.Kalpesh U. Patil, for the Petitioner.

Mr.Joel Carlos, for Respondent No.2.

Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & M. S. KARNIK, JJ

RESERVED ON : 22nd DECEMBER, 2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 05th JANUARY, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

fnally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2. This is a Petition for quashing of FIR by mutual

consent. The Petitioners have approached this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 for quashing of C.R.No.

283/2020 dated 15/09/2020 registered with Koregaon Police

Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469

470, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel

submitted that the parties have mutually settled the dispute.

The Petitioners are the workers of the Karkhana i.e. Jarendeshwar

Sugar Mills of which Respondent No.2 is the General Manager.

There arose some dispute between the Petitioners who are ofce

44. wpst 5378.20.doc

bearers of the Union and Respondent No.2 in respect of

contribution collected from the workers and disbursement

thereof to the legal representative of the employee - Sanjay

Ganpat Kadam who died during the course of employment with

the Respondent. Later on it was realised that the dispute arose

purely on account of some misunderstanding between the Union

and the Management. Having realised that the said dispute has

arisen purely as a result of some misunderstanding, the parties

decided to amicably resolve the dispute and Respondent No.2

consented for quashing of FIR. The Petitioners are ofce bearers

of the Union functioning in the Karkhana of Respondent No.2.

Learned Counsel submitted that for the smooth functioning of the

Karkhana, it is absolutely essential that there should be cordial

relations between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. The

parties have cleared the misunderstanding and are since

maintaining cordial relations.

3. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v.

State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal

cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour

stand on a diferent footing for the purposes of quashing,

particularly the ofences arising from commercial, fnancial,

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

44. wpst 5378.20.doc

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the

ofence 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 resolved 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 ofender 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 guidance engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to

secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process

of any court.

4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has tendered

an afdavit on behalf of Respondent No.2 consenting for

quashing. In the light of the averments in the afdavit, we are

satisfed that FIR deserves to be quashed as no useful purpose

would be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution

since Respondent No.2 is not going to depose against the

44. wpst 5378.20.doc

Petitioners. To secure the ends of justice and as parties have

stated that for smooth and efective functioning of sugar factory,

it is always essential that the Petitioners and Respondent No.2

maintain cordial relationship which they are maintaining, in our

opinion, continuing with the criminal prosecution will be an abuse

of process of Court and therefore the FIR deserves to be quashed

by consent, however, subject to imposing some cost in the

peculiar facts of the present case. As the Petitioners are workers

of the Respondent No.2 - sugar factory, learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2 fairly submitted that though Respondent No.2 is

an informant, it is Respondent No.2 who will bear the cost of

Rs.15,000/- payable to the Juvenile Justice Board.

5. The Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer

clause (a) with cost of Rs.15,000/- be paid by Respondent No.2.

Prayer Clause (a) reads thus :

"This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside CR No. 283/2020 dated 15/09/2020, registered with Koregaon Police Station, Koregaon, Tal : Koregaon, Dist : Satara for ofences punishable under sections 420, 468, 469, 470, 471 r/w 34 of IPC against the present Petitioners."

6. The amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited by the

Respondent No.2 in the following account :

44. wpst 5378.20.doc

Name of Account Holder for J.J. Fund

DY. COMMI. (CHILD DEVELOP) AND MEM. SECY. & TRY M S

CHILD FUND.

                           Account No. :      11099464354

                           Name and Address of Bank

                                 State Bank of India

                                 Pune Main Branch

                                 Collector Ofce Compound, Pune.

                           Branch Code : 454

                           IFSC : SBIN0000454

                           MICR : 411002002.




                           7.          Rule is made absolute in the above terms.     Writ

                           Petition is disposed of.




                           (M.S.KARNIK, J. )                         (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

         Digitally
Urmila   signed by
         Urmila P. Ingle
P.       Date:
         2021.01.05
Ingle    12:53:10
         +0530