High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application to quash FIR 127/2014. The court accepted affidavits from respondent witnesses stating they reached a voluntary, written settlement with the applicant to amicably resolve their dispute.
Criminal application allowed; FIR No. 127/2014 quashed; Rule made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
961 sr. no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2929 OF 2015
GIRISH GULAB CHAUDHARI VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Amol S. Sawant. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. A. V. Deshmukh. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. C. Chavan. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. H. F. Pawar.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2015.
PER COURT:
1] Heard.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of parties.
3] This application takes exception to FIR bearing No. 127/2014. In pursuance to the notice issued to the respondents and also to the injured witness, Bhimsingh Rajput, they have filed affidavits in reply. Respondent No.3 – Bhimsingh Rajput, in para 2 of his affidavit in reply has stated that as
the complainant and applicants are well acquainted of each other, and presently both of them have decided to settle the dispute between them amicably and accordingly, settlement is also reduced into writing. Considering the said fact, he has no objection for the purpose of allowing the present criminal application, quashing the complainant lodged by the
{2}
961 sr. no..odt
complainant, and the crime No.127 of 2014 registered with Deopur Police Station, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. Respondent No.2 has also filed affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said affidavit that well wishers of the society and friends of the applicants and applicants and respondent No.2 have decided to settle the dispute amicably and accordingly they have settled the same and he has no objection for quashing the FIR No. 127 of 2014.
4] The applicant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present in the Court. They have stated that the said settlement is their voluntary act without any coercion. In that view of the matter, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the court, the application deserves to be allowed.
5] In the result, criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). Same stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[A.M. BADAR] [S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FCCR application should be allowed to quash FIR No. 127/2014 in light of a voluntary settlement between the applicant and the accused witnesses?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GIRISH GULAB CHAUDHARI
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S.S. SHINDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
