Allowed

Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave and Ors. v. Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010WP/2802/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two cross-writ petitions, the Bombay High Court quashed FIRs and related criminal proceedings (CR No. 32 of 2006 under IPC Sections 143-149, 323, 337 and CR No. 31 of 2006 under IPC Sections 143-149, 452, 337, 324, 323, 427) at Umadi Police Station, Sangli District, following amicable settlements between accused and complainants, citing Supreme Court precedents on abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

CR Nos. 31 and 32 of 2006 of Umadi Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto were quashed.

Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave and Ors. Vs Tayyappa… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 crwp2802280310.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRI.W.P. NO. 2802 OF 2010

¶6

Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave & ors.

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr...Respondents

¶10

Mr. V.V.Purwant Adv. for petitioners
Smt.M.M.Deshmukh APP for State

¶11

WITH

¶12

CRI. W.P.NO. 2803 OF 2010

¶13

Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr...Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Birappa Maryyapa Galave
& Anr. ..Respondents

¶16

Mr. Shrikant Chavan Adv.for petitioners

¶17

Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State

¶18

CORAM :SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.

¶19

DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2010

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

1Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners,

¶22

2 crwp2802280310.doc

¶23

learned advocates for the complainants and the learned APP
for the State.

¶24

2The petitioners in W.P.No. 2802 of 2010 have prayed
for quashing of CR No.32 of 2006, wherein they are accused. CR
No.32 of 2006 came to be registered on FIR by respondent no.1
Tayappa Mhalappa Tone. It is now numbered as RCC No. 164 of
2006 and is pending before the J.M.F.C. Jath.

¶25

3The petitioners in W.P.No.2803 of 2010 have prayed
for quashing of CR No.31 of 2006 wherein they are accused. The
said CR is registered on FIR by respondent no.1 in this W.P.
i.e. Birappa Naryyappa Galve.

¶26

4Both these C.Rs. Pertain to Umadi Police Station,
Dist. Sangli. They are cross cases. CR No. 32 of 2006 is
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 337 of IPC. In the said
case, Namdeo Tone, Jagannath Tone, Ramesh Tone, Birappa Dhage
and Dilip Tone are the injured persons. The case arising out
of CR No.31 of 2006 is under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452,
337, 324, 323, and 427 of IPC. In the said case, Mahadev
Galve, Madappa Galve, Dadasaheb Galve, Birappa Galve, Jijabai
Galve, Shiwaji Galave and Shirwanta Galve are the injured
persons. The complainants in both cases as well as all the
injured persons in both the cases are present before the Court.

¶27

3 crwp2802280310.doc

¶28

5The learned advocate for the petitioners states that
the dispute has been amicably settled between the accused and
the complainants and they do not wish to proceed any further
with the cases. Affidavits of complainant and injured persons
have been filed stating therein that the disputes are amicably
settled and the cases may be quashed.

¶29

6In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case
ofMadan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969,
it isobserved as follows:

¶30

"We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable
that in disputes where the question involved is of a
purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily
accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal
proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution
is a luxury which the Courts, grossly ovberburdened
as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved
can be utilized in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common sense
approach to the matter based on ground of realities
and bereft of the technicalities of the law".

¶31

7In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977

¶32

4 crwp2802280310.doc

¶33

Cr.L.J. 1125the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power,
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to
the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The
Supreme Court further observed that this power is designed to
achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶34

8Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of
amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash
the FIRs and the proceedings relating thereto.

¶35

9C.R.Nos. 31 and 2006 and 32 of 2006 of Umadi Police
Station and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed.

¶36

10Petitions disposed of.

¶37

 [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave and Ors. v. Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadasaheb Yallapa Galave and Ors. v. Tayyappa Mhalappa Tone and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harishchandra Khopte Vs State of Maharashtra

Bharti Infotel Ltd. Vs R.K.Mhatre

Guddu @ Mudassar Munawar Majid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwanath Shama Shetty and Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Shankar Dattatray Ingawale Vs Rajashree Shankar Ingawale and Anr.

Pappu @ Ravindra Devidas Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra