Allowed

Govind Babu Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2006WP/924/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging an FIR under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court quashed the proceedings based on a satisfied Complainant (Respondent No.2) who had no objection to setting aside the FIR, aiming to meet the ends of justice after a previous related petition was disposed of as settled.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the FIR against the petitioner is quashed/setting aside based on the complainant's satisfaction.

Govind Babu Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2006

¶4

 Mr. Govind Babu Agarwal .. Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents.

¶7

 ---
 Mr. S.R. Ganbawle, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mrs. A.S. Pai, Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶9

 Mr. I.R. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

---

¶11

CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE
S. A. BOBDE, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 02nd AUGUST, 2006.
P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-
 and Respondent No.2, who is present-in-person as well as
 through his Advocate.

¶14

 2. Earlier, Criminal Writ Petition No. 515/1998
 was filed by the petitioner wherein this court passed an
 order on 4th of June, 2003, taking note of the
 settlement of the matter out of court and accordingly
 that petition was disposed of. The learned Advocate for
 the petitioner, however, states that even though that
 petition was disposed of as settled out of the court but
 the offence under the provisions of Schedule Caste and

¶15

 -: 2 :-

¶16

 Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
 Atrocities) Act, 1989 remains against the petitioner and
 therefore, the petitioner has filed this present
 petition.

¶17

 3. Now the Respondent No.2, on the basis of whose
 complaint F.I.R.No. 30/1998 was registered against the
 petitioner under the provisions of the Schedule Caste
 and Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
 Atrocities) Act, 1989, is in-person present in the court
 and says that now he has no grievance against the
 petitioner and that his claim is fully satisfied. He
 further says that now he has no objection of whatsoever
 nature for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R.
 against the petitioner and that he does not wish to
 prosecute the matter and the same is amicably settled.
 In view of this positive and clear statement of
 Respondent No.2 and to meet the ends of justice, this
 petition deserves to be allowed.

¶18

 4. In view of this, we allow this writ petition in
 terms of prayer clause (A). The petition is disposed of
 accordingly.

¶19

 (D.G.DESHPANDE,J)

¶20

 -: 3 :-

¶21

 (S.A. BOBDE, J)

Govind Babu Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Babu Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haroon Mohammed Naim Choudhary Vs A.N. Roy and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pramod Waman Bhilare and Anr.

Santoshkumar Shrijaylal Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahendra Appa Khilari and Ors.

Sanjay Ramchandra Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Ramvishal Chamar Vs the State of Maharashtra