Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Shaikhji ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14065 Bom

                                                    1          Cri.APL No.943.21-J.odt

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

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 943 OF 2021

          Mohammad Hanif Mohammad
          Shaikhji Jamal,
          Age - 43 years, Occu. - Labourer,
          R/o. Chand Nagar, Digras,
          Tq. Digras, Dist. - Yavatmal.                              ... APPLICANT

                  ----VERSUS----

 1.     State of Maharashtra, through
        PSO Digras, Tq. - Digras,
        District - Yavatmal.

 2.     Mahalka Najnin Mohammad Ismail,
        Age - 43 Yrs., Occu. - Service,
        R/o. Chand Nagar, Digras,
        Tq.- Digras, Dist. - Yavatmal                       ... NON-APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Imran Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant/State.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          CORAM :          V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

          DATE        :    29.09.2021.

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


 1.            Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the proceedings

initiated against him vide Session Case No.19/2020 pending

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, District

Yavatmal in consequence of the First Information Report bearing

No.853/2018 registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A,

447, 353, 294, 509 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicants with the accusations that the applicant held

hand of the non-applicant No.2 with bad intention and abused the

non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that the applicant committed

such act which offended modesty of the non-applicant No.2. The

Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and filed

charge-sheet against the applicant.

5. During pendency of the proceedings, the applicant and

the non-applicant No.2 have arrived at settlement and the

applicant has therefore filed present application challenging

continuation of proceedings against the applicant.

6. The non-applicant No.2 has filed affidavit dated

26.09.2021. In the said affidavit, the non-applicant No.2 has

given her no objection for quashing and setting aside the

proceedings of Sessions Case No.19/2020 filed against the

applicant.

7. Today, the non-applicant No.2 is personally present in

the Court and stated that she has settled her dispute with the

applicant. She stated that she has settled the dispute without any

pressure or duress exercised on her. The non-applicant No.2 was

identified by the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.

8. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report and taking into consideration the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.

State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is advisable that, the Court

should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal

proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of

conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the

Courts, grossly over-burdened, as they are, cannot afford and that

the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and

meaningful litigation.

9. We are, therefore, satisfied that continuation of the

proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of

process of Court.

10. We therefore, pass following order :

The proceedings against the applicant vide Sessions

Case No.19/2020 pending before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Darwha, District Yavatmal in consequence of the First

Information Report No.853/2018 registered with the

non-applicant No.1- Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 354-A, 447, 353, 294, 509 and 504 of the

Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                            JUDGE                                           JUDGE



RGurnule