Bombay High Court
Zoraver Deepender Rana vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 August, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:32054-DB
sns 15-wp-1908-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1908 OF 2022
1. Zoraver Deepender Rana,
Age: about 27 years, Occ: Service,
Indian Inhabitant, Permanent resident of:
574-Narot, Mehara,
Pathankot, Punjab-145 025 .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of
Police Station Kudal, Sindhudurg,
FIR No.178 of 2019)
2. Makarand Krishna Birari,
Age: about 42 years, Occ: Tour and travels,
Indian Inhabitant, Permanent resident of:
A-04, Sudama Sankalp Society
Near Abhinav School,
Dombivali, East, Mumbai-421201 .....Respondents
Mr. Kartikey Bahadur, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, for Respondent No.2.
HC/370 Mr. Mangesh Jadhav, Kudal Police Station.
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND
DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE : 5th August, 2024.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1) Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside F.I.R. No. 178 of 2019
dated 25th August 2019 registered with Kudal Police Station, Sindhudurg for
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code,1860
("IPC") alongwith section 132 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
sns 15-wp-1908-2022.doc
the subsequent charge sheet bearing RCC No. 248 of 2020 pe nding on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudal , Sindhudurg arising
therefrom.
2) The facts of the case are that, the Petitioner hired a car being
TATA Indigo having registration No. MH-04-GD-6598 from its owner, the
Respondent No.2, engaged in the business of tours and travels. On the date
of incident, the driver namely one Gajanan A. Joshi was sleepy and hence,
the Petitioner offered to drive himself. Mr. Joshi sat on seat next to the
driver. They were travelling on the Mumbai-Goa highway. It is the case of
the informant that, because of carelessness, the car hit a container coming
from the opposite direction. The car was damaged and the Petitioner
himself was bruised. He drove away without giving information of the
incident to the Police. Hence, the present FIR came to be registered.
4) Mr. Kartikey Bahadur, learned Advocate appears for the
Petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani appears for the Respondent No.2. Mr.
Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP represents the State.
5) The Advocates of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 state
that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and have settled the
matter among themselves. Both the parties pray that the FIR be quashed in
the interest of justice pursuant to the settlement between the parties.
6) The Respondent No. 2 has also given his consent to quash the
sns 15-wp-1908-2022.doc
FIR impugned herein vide affidavit dated 11th April 2022. Mr. Gaurav
Bhawnani learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 on instructions
states that the Respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the FIR.
7) In view thereof, we are inclined to quash C.C.No. 248 0f 2020
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudal, Sindhudurg
arising out of C.R.No. 178 of 2019 registered with Kudal Police Station,
Sindhudurg.
8) As we expressed our opinion for quashing of the said Criminal
Proceedings bearing C.C.No. 248 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kudal, Sindhudurg, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, on instructions submitted that, the Petitioner will pay a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai within a
period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the
official website of Bombay High Court. The said statement is accepted as an
undertaking given to this Court.
9) We therefore, direct Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to
the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks
from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of
Bombay High Court. Petitioner to deposit the said cost within stipulated
period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this
Court.
sns 15-wp-1908-2022.doc
10) In view of the above and subject to payment of cost, Petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
11) It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated
period as mentioned above, the Petition shall stand revived automatically
and in that event, trial Court will proceed with the said case expeditiously.
(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.08.12
17:41:12
+0530
