Allowed

Santosh S/O Karbhari Todkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2015APPLN/1489/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench allowed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR, charge sheet, and regular criminal case. The court held that since the parties, who were friends, sought to harmonize relations, continuing prosecution was futility.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.271 of 2014, Charge Sheet No.25/2015 and RCC No. 360 of 2015 for offence under Section 324 IPC pending before 12th JMFC (Railways), Aurangabad were quashed and set aside.

Santosh S/O Karbhari Todkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

906 sr. no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2015

¶5

SANTOSH S/O KARBHARI TODKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOHTER

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.S. Thombre APP for respondent No.1 : Mr. B.L. Dhas Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. S.B. Solanke.

¶7

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2015.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1] Heard.

¶10

2] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/original accused is praying for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet bearing No. 25 of 2015, which is now registered as RCC No. 360 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, pending before the learned 12th JMFC (Railways), Aurangabad.

¶11

3] We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant/original accused, learned APP for the State as well as Shri Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/original informant Vitthal Ramhari Jadhav.

¶12

4] The crime in question came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged by Vitthal Ramhari Jadhav, wherein, he has stated that on

¶13

{2}

¶14

906 sr. no..odt

¶15

12.7.2015, at about 8.30 pm., he and petitioner/original accused Santosh Todkar, had been to a beer bar. There they had dispute over the issue of making payment of bill and for that reason, the petitioner gave a blow of bottle of thumps up on his head causing injury to him. The charge sheet placed on record shows that respondent No.2 Vitthal Jadhav sustained incised wound on face and on forehead.

¶16

5] Though initially, offence was registered under Section 307 of IPC, after causing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and same is pending before the learned JMFC, Aurangabad.

¶17

6] Today, the petitioner/original accused as well as respondent No.2/informant are present before the Court. Both of them are identified by their respective counsel. Upon being questioned, respondent No.2 – Vitthal Jadhav has reported us that he is a friend of applicant/original accused and the quarrel in question arose at a spur of moment. Respondent No.2 Vitthal Jadhav is praying that the FIR, as well as the charge sheet and resultant Regular Criminal Case be quashed as he wants to maintain harmonious relations with present petitioner.

¶18

7] It is well settled that inherent powers of the Court are required to be exercised for securing the ends of justice. In the case in hand, obviously, the prosecuting party as well as accused were good friends and they want to continue their friendship. The alleged offence is for causing

¶19

{3}

¶20

906 sr. no..odt

¶21

hurt with dangerous weapon and now, they want to settle the dispute for ever.

¶22

8] Our attention is also drawn to the affidavit filed on record by the respondent No.2/informant wherein he has stated that to maintain cordial relationship between him and the petitioner, considering their friendship, the FIR and resultant prosecution may be quashed.

¶23

9] Considering the nature of the offence and the object of both the parties to maintain harmonious relationship, we are of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed as continuation of prosecution in such set of facts would be totally futile. As such the order :-

¶24

[A] The application is allowed and disposed of. [b] The FIR No.271 of 2014, Charge sheet bearing

¶25

No.25/2015 and resultant RCC No. 360 of 2015, between the parties for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, pending on the file of 12^th JMFC (Railways) is quashed and set aside.

¶26

[A.M. BADAR] [S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶27

grt/-

Santosh S/O Karbhari Todkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Karbhari Todkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind S/O Narayan Bachute and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Haji Shaikh Babu Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indubai W/O Narayan Jamdade Vs the State of Maharashtra

1 Anand S/O Rajendra Gadekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhiraj Hanumant Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Girish Gulab Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.