Allowed

Divya Arun Goradia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashatra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2013APPLN/177/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC following a settlement where the complainant stated the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and expressed no wish to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the First Information Report and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 163 of 2007; made the rule absolute.

Divya Arun Goradia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashatra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

67-appln.177.2007.doc

¶3

nsc.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2007

¶6

Mrs.Divya Arjun Goradia and Anr. v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶7

...Applicants.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande,for the applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mrs.Ashwini Takalkar, for respondent no.3. Mr.Rajendra Rokade, API, Panchgani Police Station

¶10

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶11

JULY 29, 2013.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the

¶14

applicants/accused in Crime No.10 of 2006, lodged by the respondent no.3, seeks quashing of the same.

¶15

It appears that pursuant to the report lodged by respondent no.3, an offence punishable under Section 3(1),

¶16

¶17

67-appln.177.2007.doc

¶18

(x), (6) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1), (d), (10) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the applicants. It further appears that pursuant to the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet came to be filed and the same is now registered as Sessions Case no.163 of 2007 pending on the file of the Sessions Court at Satara. It further appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 11th July, 2007 issued Rule and granted Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) to the application. By virtue of prayer clause (b) the applicants have prayed that during the pendency of this application further proceedings initiated against the applicants pursuant to Crime no.10 of 2006, registered by the Panchgani Police Station, be stayed. Thus, since 11th July, 2007 an interim stay is operating.

¶19

It further appears that during the pendency of this application the dispute between the applicants and the

¶20

¶21

67-appln.177.2007.doc

¶22

original first informant is been amicably settled and

¶23

accordingly respondent no.3/first informant has filed an affidavit in this Court. Respondent no.3 is present in the Court and has been identified by her counsel. On being orally asked, respondent no.3 had re-iterated the contents of the affidavit and has also expressed that she does not wish to proceed further with the prosecution of the applicants. Respondent no.3 has also stated that the First Information Report came to be lodged by her due to misunderstanding and mis-information and presently she has "no complaint" against the applicants.

¶24

Since the dispute between the applicants and respondent no.3 has been settled and respondent no.3 has stated that the First Information Report came to be lodged

¶25

on account of mis-understanding and mis-information, according to us, continuance of the criminal prosecution would be abuse of process of court as there would be no likelihood of the State securing a conviction. In that light of the matter therefore, we are inclined to allow this

¶26

¶27

67-appln.177.2007.doc

¶28

application.

¶29

5. We accordingly allow this application and quash

¶30

and set aside the First Information Report as well as the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 163 of 2007, pending on the file of the Sessions Court at Satara. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Since Rule has been issued, we make the rule absolute on the above terms.

¶31

(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Divya Arun Goradia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashatra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Arun Goradia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashatra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Kejriwal and Ors. Vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Bittu Domilal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Kumar Kejriwal and Ors. Vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Dattatraya Shrirang Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Hansajirao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh @ Sham Venkat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra