Bombay High Court
Gangaram @ Guddu Tannumal Karda ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 16 July, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl868.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 868/2020
1] Gangaram @ Guddu Tannumal Karda,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Hemu Kalani Square, Sindhi Colony,
Gondia
2] Sarfraj Shamim Ahemad,
Aged about 24 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. SaleTax Colony, Fulchur,
Gondia
3] Shyam @ PT Ramesh Chachere,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Business
R/o. Paikantoli, Gautam Nagar,
Gondia
4] Yograj Ramprasad Masarke,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o. Dhakni, Kalaghota,
Gondia
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Gondia City, Gondia
.... NON-APPLICANT
*******************************************************************
Shri K.S. Motwani, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
JULY 16, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
Judgment 2 apl868.20.odt
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] This is a joint application filed by the applicants challenging
registration of F.I.R. No. 469/2017 dated 14/08/2017 alongwith Final Report
No. 29/2018 and proceedings of the criminal case i.e. R.C.C. No. 117/2018
pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondia.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicant nos. 1 to 3 with the accusations that on 14/08/2017 around 9:00
am, the applicant nos. 1 to 3 went to the residence of the applicant no. 4 in
their car and pressurized him by force and offered the gifts to withdraw his
statement in relation to the offence of forgery registered against the applicant
nos. 1 to 3 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 851/2020. The Investigating
Agency carried out the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the
applicant nos. 1 to 3. The applicants have therefore filed the present
criminal application stating that the applicants have arrived at settlement
and the applicant no. 4 does not intend to continue with the prosecution
against the applicant nos. 1 to 3.
5] We have considered the averments in the application. The
applicant no. 4 was present through video conferencing. Today itself, another
application bearing Criminal Application (APL) No. 851/2020 was before us
in relation to joint application filed by the accused and complainant therein
Judgment 3 apl868.20.odt
to set aside first information report for offences against the applicant nos. 1
to 3 therein under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. We
refused to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on the ground that the complainant therein reiterated her
statement that she had not signed the alleged agreement to sell on the basis
of which the offences were registered against the applicant nos. 1 to 3
therein. The applicant no. 4 in the present application is the witness in
relation to the document of agreement to sell in relation to which the first
information report which was the subject matter of Criminal Application
(APL) No. 851/2020. On consideration of the demeanor of the applicant
no. 4, we are not satisfied that he has settled the matter out of his free will.
Even otherwise also, since we have refused to exercise the power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the offence of
forgery in relation to the agreement to sell of which the applicant no. 4 is
witness, the offences alleged against the applicant nos. 1 to 3 are inter-
related with the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code which was the subject matter of Criminal Application (APL)
No. 851/2020.
6] Since we do not find that the applicant no. 4 is compromising
the present matter out of his free will and in connected Criminal Application
(APL) No. 851/2020 we refused to exercise our power under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the opinion that it will not serve
Judgment 4 apl868.20.odt
the ends of justice if we quash the first information report and charge-sheet
impugned in the present application.
7] Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
