Bombay High Court
Sharad Machhindra Jagdale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 31 March, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
458.21crapln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.458 OF 2021
SHARAD MACHHINDRA JAGDALE AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr R. R. Karpe, Advocate for applicants;
Mr S. G. Sangle, A.P.P. for respondent No.1;
Mr Shaikh Mazhar Jahagirdar, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 31st March, 2021
PER COURT:
1. By this application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the
first information report in Crime No.0102 of 2020, registered with the
Shrirampur City Police Station, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 417 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. This Court had directed respondent No.2 to file an affidavit-in-
reply, vide order dated 03/03/2021 since it was canvassed that the
matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Our attention is
drawn to the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 from Page 38. It is
pointed out that as the informant felt cheated by the acts of the
applicants in refusing to allot the shop to him, which was vacated for
458.21crapln
renovation, and since the said shop is now allotted to him and he has
taken possession of the same, his grievance is redressed and the first
information report can be quashed since no purpose would be served in
subjecting the parties to Trial.
3. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that as the
grievance of the informant has been redressed and the shop has been
allotted to him, proceeding with the trial would amount to unnecessary
utilization of the precious time of the Court and which would merely
be for an academic purpose as the informant does not desire to press
the charges against the applicants.
4. The learned Prosecutor submits that in such matters, when the
process of law is utilized by any litigants, especially in commercial
matters or matrimonial matters, costs should be paid by the parties as
the Police machinery was set into motion for initiating investigation.
5. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that both the
applicants are willing to donate an amount of Rs.10,000/- each, to the
office of the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, for being
utilized for a social cause concerning the families of the Police
personnel or their children. The learned Advocate for the informant
submits that he would also donate Rs.10,000/- to the said office for the
same purpose.
458.21crapln
6. We place reliance upon the judgment delivered by the
Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors. vs. State of Gujarat
and anr, (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 641. Sections 406 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code attracted in the present matter, can be
compounded with the permission of the Court and Section 417 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, would be a compoundable
offence. Considering the law laid down by the Honourable Apex
Court and since no heinous crime has been committed against the
society, or against the informant, we find that no purpose would be
served in compelling the parties to face the rigours of litigation.
7. As such, this application is allowed by consent. The First
Information Report in Crime No.0102 of 2020, registered on
09/02/2020, is quashed and set aside.
8. Both the applicants and respondent No.2 - informant, would
deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- each, in the office of the District
Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, on or before 15/04/2021.
9. The said amount would be utilized to achieve a social purpose,
especially in connection with the families of the Police personnel and/
458.21crapln
or the children of Police personnel, within the jurisdiction of the
Ahmednagar Police Station.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
