Allowed

1 Digamber S/O Sukhlal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2015APPLN/308/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two separate criminal applications, the High Court held that proceedings in two Sessions cases arising from a private fight resulting in injuries should be quashed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court found that since disputes were settled and no serious prosecution was viable, allowing it would be meaningless.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Sessions Cases No. 73/2013 and No. 104/2013 were quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute.

1 Digamber S/O Sukhlal Rathod and Ors. Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2015

¶5

1. Digambar s/o Sukhlal Rathod, Age 23 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o. Pultanda Taluka and District : Aurangabad.

¶6

1. Devidas s/o Rama Rathod, Age 55 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda Taluka and District : Aurangabad.

¶7

1. Santosh s/o Mohan Rathod, Age 26 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.

¶8

1. Sukhlal s/o Rama Rathod, Age 45 years, Occ : Agricultura, R/o Pultanda, Taluka District : Aurangabad.

¶9

1. Mohan s/o Rama Rathod, Age 60 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.

¶10

1. Sunil s/o Devidas Rathod, Age 22 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka District : Aurangabad.

¶11

1. Baban s/o Mohan Rathod, Age 35 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka District : Aurangabad.

¶12

1. Mithun s/o Devidas Rathod, Age 19 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.

¶13

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶14

¶15

9)	Ahilyabai w/o Sukhlal Rathod, Age 40 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.
10)	Sunita w/o Baban Rathod, Age 30 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka District : Aurangabad.
11)	Sakhubai w/o Mohan Rathod, Age 60 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.
12)	Zipabai w/o Devidas Rathod, Age 45 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. ....Applicants. Versus
1)	The State of Maharashtra.
2)	Sanjay s/o Ramchandra Chavan, Age 26 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. ....Respondents.
Mr. R appli	upesh Jaiswal h/f. Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for cants.
Mr. B.	L. Dhus, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. R.	B. Ade, Advocate for respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6854 OF 2014
1)	Madan s/o Hari Chavan, Age 24 years, Occ. Agriculture,
2)	Sanjay s/o Ramchandra Chavan, Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶16

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶17

¶18

3)	Vijay s/o Ramchandra Chavan, Age 23 years, Occ. Agriculture,
4)	Hari s/o Bala Chavan, Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,
5)	Ramchandra s/o Bala Chavan, Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture,
6)	Raju s/o Ramchandra Chavan, Age 21 years, Occ. Education,
7)	Vaishali Madan Chavan, Age 22 years, Occ. Household,
8)	Kesarbai Hari Chavan, Age 38 years, Occ. Household,
9)	Shantabai Ramchandra Chavan, Age 55 years, Occ. Household,
10)	Kavita Vijay Chavan, Age 20 years, Occ.
11)	Radhabai Sanjay Chavan, Age 23 years, Occ. Household,
	All R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad. Versus	....Applicants.
1)	The State of Maharashtra.
2)	Digambar s/o Suklal Rathod, Age 26 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Pultanda, Taluka and District : Aurangabad.	....Respondents.
Mr.	Ravindra B. Chavan , Advocate for	applicants.
Mr.	B. L. Dhus, APP for respondent No.	1/State.
	CORAM	: T.V. NALAWADE &
	DATED	SMT. I.K. JAIN, JJ. : 20th March, 2015.

¶19

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT :

¶22

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned APP was asked to make submissions.

¶23

In the first matter, relief is claimed to quash and set aside the proceeding of Sessions Case No. 73/2013, presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The case is filed for offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 etc. of Indian Penal Code and section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The second proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of Sessions Case No. 104/2013, presently pending before the same learned Judge of Sessions Court and the said case is filed for almost similar offences punishable under I.P.C. and the Bombay Police Act.

¶24

It appears that on 4.12.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., there was virtually free fight between two groups and both the sides used weapons like sticks, axe etc. against each other. Many persons from both the sides were injured in the incident. The reports were given by both the sides and so, two cases were registered and now the counter-cases are pending.

¶25

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶26

¶27

In both the cases, affidavits of the injured persons are filed and they have contended that they have settled the dispute. They have contended that there was no serious dispute between the parties and the incident took place due to right of use of particular portion of land as a way and so, they have settled the dispute.

¶28

This Court has carefully gone through the injury certificates from both the cases. Though many persons from both the sides sustained injuries, the injuries are described as simple injuries and they were were caused by hard and blunt object. It was submitted that both the sides exaggerated the things and so, the crime came to be registered for offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. also.

¶29

As reliefs are claimed for quashing of the cases, the learned counsels of the applicants from both the proceedings placed reliance on some cases of Supreme Court like 2014 CRI.L.J. 3935 [Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.] and AIR 2013 SC 518 [Dimpey Gujral w/o. Vivek Gujral & Ors. Vs. Union Territory Thr. Admin., U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.]. In these cases, the Apex Court has discussed the power of High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Cri. Appln. No. 308/15 & Anr.

¶31

¶32

The first case was in respect of crime registered for offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C.. In both cases, it is observed that though offences are not compoundable under section 320 of Cr.P.C., if the offences are not against the society, they took place due to private dispute between the two sides and both the sides decided to compromise the matter, it will be meaningless to allow the prosecution to continue as the cases will not result in conviction. As the facts of the present case are almost similar, this Court holds that the proceedings need to be quashed.

¶33

In the result, both the applications are allowed. The proceedings of aforesaid Sessions Cases are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶34

[ SMT. I.K. JAIN, J. ] [ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶35

ssc/

1 Digamber S/O Sukhlal Rathod and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1 Digamber S/O Sukhlal Rathod and Ors. v. 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

Sameer Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sameer Ahmed Khan Saud Ahmed Khan Patel Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Prabhakar Kerba Bichkate Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Mah Vs Baliram Rangnath Devkate and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Baliram Rangnath Devkate and Ors.

Habib Ahmed S/O Habib Abdulla @ Hallmuchaus Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others