Paramjitsingh Baldeosingh ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ramnagar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8698 Bom

 Judgment                                      1                                apl477.20.odt




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


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 477/2020


          Paramjitsingh Baldeosingh Dalleke,
          A/a 32 years, Occ. Business,
          R/o. G.T.B. Nagar, Nagpur Road,
          Padoli, Kosara, Chandrapur,
          Dist. Chandrapur
                                                                         .... APPLICANT

                                       // VERSUS //

 1]       State of Maharashtra,
          Through its P.S.O., Police Station
          Ramnagar, Dist. Chandrapur

 2]       Indu Laxman Taksande,
          Aged 70 years, Occ. Housewife
          R/o. Bhumiputra Colony, Congress
          Nagar Road, Amravati, Dist. Amravati
                                                              .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

  *******************************************************************
               Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the applicant
            Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
            Shri A. Subhan, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
  *******************************************************************

                               CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

JULY 02, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.





  Judgment                                   2                                apl477.20.odt




 3]               This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 148/2020 registered with the

non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicant and others with the accusations that the applicant allegedly

purchased property owned by the complainant from the persons who had no

title over the plot owned by the complainant. It is alleged that the applicant

shown unidentified lady for purchase of sale of plot owned by the

complainant portraying her as the complainant.

5] The applicant has therefore filed the present application

challenging registration of the first information report. This Court on

07/01/2021 issued notices to the non-applicants. During the pendency of the

present application, the applicant and the complainant arrived at settlement

and memorandum of understanding was executed between the applicant and

the non-applicant no. 2 on 15/01/2021. As per Clause (2) of the

memorandum of understanding, it is agreed that the non-applicant no. 2

shall file civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 22/03/2016

executed in favour of the applicant and the applicant shall give his no

objection for cancellation of the said sale-deed. This Court by the order dated

Judgment 3 apl477.20.odt

11/02/2021 directed the Civil Court to decide the said civil suit on or before

26/02/2021.

6] The applicant has filed a pursis stating that the non-applicant

no. 2 had filed R.C.S. No. 21/2021 which has been disposed in view of the

compromise entered into between the applicant and the non-applicant no. 2.

By way of compromise decree, it is declared that the non-applicant no. 2 is

the owner of the said property and the applicant has no right, title or interest

over the said property. The sale-deed dated 22/03/2016 was also declared as

null and void and not binding on the non-applicant no. 2.

7] In view of the compromise decree between the applicant and

the non-applicant no. 2 and both the parties having mutually resolved their

dispute, we are satisfied that the offences alleged against the applicant being

personal in nature, there is no impediment in quashing the first information

report registered against the applicant.

8] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot

Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it is

advisable that in disputes where the question involved is purely of a personal

nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even

in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a

Judgment 4 apl477.20.odt

result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly

overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be

utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

9] Therefore, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in view of the

compromise entered into between the applicant and the non-applicant no. 2,

we are satisfied that the first information report registered against the

applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10] Hence, the following order:-

F.I.R. No. 148/2020 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 -

Police Station against the applicant for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending applications,

if any, stand disposed of.

                   (JUDGE)                                  (JUDGE)



 ANSARI