Allowed

Rajesh Gopal Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2011APL/270/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal application quashing proceedings lodged for rioting and other I.P.C. offences. The court relied on the complainant's affidavit stating disputes were settled, invoking PC principles for personal nature disputes and powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

CC No. 1100/PW/2009 pending before Additional C.J.M. 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai is quashed and set aside.

Rajesh Gopal Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2011)

apl-270-11.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 270 of 2011

¶7

Rajesh Gopal Sharma and others .. Applicants.

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and Anr .. Respondents.

¶10

Mr Yogesh Israni, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr S.B. Keswani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Mrs P.P.Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶14

DATED: 21st April, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the applicants who have challenged the

¶17

lodging of complaint and prayed for quashing of CC No.1100 /PW/2009 pending before Additional C.J.M. 9^th Court, Bandra.

¶18

Respondent No.2 – original complainant is present in the Court.

¶19

He had earlier filed affidavit sworn on 15^th March, 2011. In paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit, it is specifically mentioned that all the differences and disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and nothing survives in the matter. This is concerning C.R. No. 128 of

¶20

2 apl-270-11.doc

¶21

Ladda

¶22

2009 filed by present Respondent No.2 at Khar Police Station, Mumbai. Out of the said C.R. No. CC/100/PW/09 arise.

¶23

Offences alleged against the present applicants are punishable under sections 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Offences of rioting and the offence under section 324 of I.P.C. are non compoundable even with the permission of the trial Court. Till considering the ratio propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 , if the matters are involving the disputes of personal nature, it would be in the interest of justice to put an end to such litigation. The observation of the Apex Court are reproduced with advantage as under:

¶24

“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 over burdened 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

apl-270-11.doc

Ladda

technicalities of the law.”

¶29

In another decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs.

¶30

L. Muniswamy and ors 1977 Cr.L.J 1125 it has been observed that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. grants whole some power to the High Court to quash the proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding would be abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶31

Bearing in mind the ratios as mentioned above, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the said litigation when the complainant himself sworns on oath that he has compounded the offences and which are specifically mentioned in the complaint and apparently not of such a serious nature as to involve common public at large.

¶32

In view of the above, present application is allowed. The proceeding lodged under CC No. 1100/PW/2009 pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 9^th Court at Bandra, Mumbai is quashed and set aside.

¶33

Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.

Rajesh Gopal Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gopal Sharma and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haresh G. Doulatani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhumesh Gaikwad Vs the Principal Secretary of Home Department and Anr.

Manoj Madhukar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Vikram Trading Co.

Manju Sukhbhahaddor Tamang Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Munnali @ Mustaqali Subratiali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra