Bombay High Court
Abhishek Ravindra Talmale And ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Anil S. Kilor
8-apl-272-2020.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.272 OF 2020
1) Abhishek s/o. Ravindra Talmale,
Aged about 22 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Telipura Nityanand Temple,
Siraspeth Nagpur.
2) Archana w/o. Suresh Gajbhiye,
Aged 31 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o. Parsodi, Th: Parseoni,
At present R/o. A-3, Krishna Arjuna
Apartment, Behind Kalapana Talkies,
Mankapur, Nagpur. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Mankapur Police Station,
Tah. and Dist. Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANT
Shri Nandesh Deshpande, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, for non-applicant/State.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 05th JANUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT: [PER: Anil S. Kilor, J.]
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. By the present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are praying for quashing
of the First Information Report vide crime No.56 of 2016, dated
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:25:26 :::
8-apl-272-2020.odt
2/5
15.04.2016 and the chargesheet bearing No.64/2016, dated
30.05.2016, for the offence punishable under section 354-D(1)(ii) of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. In the present application, the non-applicant No.2 is the
complainant, whereas the applicant No.1 is the accused.
4. The applicant No.2 on 15.04.2016, lodged a report with
the Mankapur Police Station, alleging therein that on 15.04.2016, in
the morning at 9.30 a.m, while the applicant No.2 was at home, she
received a phone call on her mobile and thereupon the applicant
No.1 informed her that his name is Shubham and on inquiry, what
work does he have with her, he asked her, whether she is an
advocate, and on affirmative answer, he requested her to meet her.
On further inquiry as regards the reason to meet, the applicant no.1
informs her that he supplies boys to married and unmarried girls for
sex and he can supply a boy to her for sex. Thereupon she lodged a
report. Accordingly, crime No.56 of 2016 dated 15.04.2016 was
registered and after completion of inquiry, the chargesheet was filed
vide chargesheet bearing No.64 of 2016 on 30.05.2016 for the
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:25:26 :::
8-apl-272-2020.odt
3/5
offence punishable under section 354-D(1)(ii) of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. The aforesaid First Information Report and chargesheet
are sought to be quashed and set aside by the present application
filed by the accused and complainant jointly.
6. We have heard Shri Nandesh Deshpande, the learned
counsel for the applicant No.1 and Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, the learned
Additional Public prosecutor for the State.
7. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the applicants
points out that dispute between the applicants has now been
resolved and in view of the settlement, the applicant No.2 does not
want to proceed further in the present matter and therefore, jointly
with applicant No.1, she is praying for quashing of the First
Information Report and chargesheet.
[
8. Today, when the matter was heard, the applicant Nos. 1
and 2 both were present. Both have been identified by their learned
counsel Shri Deshpande.
9. On interaction, the applicant No.2, informs to this Court
that looking to the future career of the applicant No.1, who was 19
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:25:26 :::
8-apl-272-2020.odt
4/5
years old on the date of incidence and who has now completed
graduation in Engineering, she want to forgive him with a view that
this criminal prosecution may not spoil his future. She further
informs this Court that the applicant no.1 has realized his mistake
and to give him a chance in his life, she does not want to proceed in
the matter.
10. On a specific query made to the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State, it was informed that there is no past
criminal record of the applicant No.1.
11. We have given our conscious thought to the facts and
circumstances of the case and thereupon we have reached to the
conclusion that because the dispute between the applicants have
already been resolved for a good reason that the applicant No.2 has
forgiven the applicant No.1 looking to his future prospects, the
applicant No.1 is entitled to get one opportunity in his life to correct
the mistake.
12. In that view of the matter, in a peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be
futile to ask the applicant no.1 to face the trial, because in the light
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:25:26 :::
8-apl-272-2020.odt
5/5
of settlement, it is unlikely that the prosecution would culminate
into conviction of the applicant No.1. Accordingly, we pass following
order:
ORDER
i) The criminal application is allowed.
ii) The First Information Report No.56 of 2016, dated
15.04.2016, against the applicant No.1, registered with Police
Station Mankapur, Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Section
354-D(1)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and the chargesheet, bearing
No.64 of 2016, dated 30.05.2016, are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The applicant No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the
High Court Legal Aid Sub-Committee, Nagpur, on or before 22 nd
January, 2021.
iv) The application is dispose of, no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
