Dhanraj Kundanmal Zanwar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3906 Bom

                                                              6 apl 195.15.jud.odt
                                              1/3



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

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.195 OF 2015



  1.              Dhanraj Kundanmal Zanwar,
                  Aged about 60 yrs, Occ. Business
                  and agriculturist,

  2.              Shankar S/o Kundanmal Zanwar,
                  Aged about 48 yrs, Occ. Business,
                  Both r/o. Kokarda, Tq. Anjangaon
                  (Surji) Dist. Amravati                       ....APPLICANTS


                                      // VERSUS //


  1.              The State of Maharashtra,
                  Through Police Station Officer,
                  Police Station Khallar,
                  Tq. Anjangaon (Surji)
                  Dist. Amravati

  2.              Shailesh Nanappa Wani
                  Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Business,
                  R/o. Budhwara, Amravati.
                  Dist. Amravati                         .... NON-APPLICANTS

  Shri Nikhil R.Tekade, Advocate for the applicants.
  Shri S.P.Deshpande, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
  Shri C.B. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
  ___________________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
                                          AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

                               DATE     : 02.03.2021.



 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: Z.A. HAQ, J.]





                                                           6 apl 195.15.jud.odt

1. The accused have filed this application under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the First

Information Report registered against them with the non-

applicant No.1/Police Station vide Crime No.04/2015 for the

offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

2. The First Information Report came to be registered on

report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 alleging that the

applicants committed theft of agricultural produce (crops)

standing in the field in question. It has come on record that there

was civil litigation going on between the applicants and the non-

applicant No.2 regarding the possession of the agricultural field

in question.

3. Today joint pursis is filed under the signature of the

applicant No.1, advocate for the applicants, the non-applicant

No.2 and advocate for the non-applicant No.2 stating that the

matter is amicably worked out by the parties. It is stated that the

non-applicant No.2 does not want to prosecute his complaint any

further.

6 apl 195.15.jud.odt

4. While issuing notice of the Criminal Application, by

order dated 19th March 2015, this Court had directed that

charge-sheet shall not be filed without seeking leave of the

Court. Charge-sheet is not yet filed.

5. Considering the facts of the case and as the

investigation has not proceeded much, in our view keeping the

criminal proceedings pending against the applicants would not

serve any fruitful purpose and ultimately it may turn to be futile

exercise.

6. Hence the following order:-

(i) The First Information Report registered against the

applicants with the non-applicant No.1/Police Station vide Crime

No.4/2015 is quashed.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                           JUDGE                             JUDGE
manisha