Quashed

Ashok Krishnaji Aaghav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2015APPLN/6712/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought to quash a registered criminal complaint involving offences under various IPC sections, including Section 307. The High Court observed the dispute arose from a misunderstanding among locality residents, who had settled the matter. Noting the settlement and the remote chances of conviction given the simple injuries, the court accepted the plea and quashed the compla

What did the court decide?

The complaint filed by respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) of IPC bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 845/2014, pursuant

Ashok Krishnaji Aaghav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

cran6712.15

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6712 OF 2015

¶5

ASHOK KRISHNAJI AAGHAV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. N. L. Choudhari APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. D. R. Kale

¶7

Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Suneet S. Suvarna

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 21^st DECEMBER, 2015

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

The present application is filed for quashing of the complaint pursuant to which, RCC bearing No. 588/15 is registered. The same is pending.

¶12

The learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicants and respondent No.2 are the residents of same locality and due to misunderstanding, the complaint was filed. The parties have settled the matter with a view to maintain cordial relations. The complainant Devendra Chandrakant Sonar is present before the Court. He is identified by his advocate. He accepts that the matter is settled between them and he has no grievance against the applicants.

¶13

The offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is in the category of heinous offences and settlement in such offence can be

¶14

cran6712.15 -2-

¶15

accepted only in exceptional cases, as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Narindar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶16

The injury certificate is produced on record. The same depicts simple injury. Chances of conviction under Section 307 of IPC are also remote. The parties have also filed a joint application stating about settlement.

¶17

The parties appear to be residing in the same area of Dhule city and they have settled the matter with a view to maintain cordial relations and to end enmity.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, we accept the same. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 for the offences puishable under Sections 307, 395, 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 845/2014, pursuant to which, RCC No. 588/15 is registered, is quashed and set aside.

¶19

Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

Ashok Krishnaji Aaghav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Krishnaji Aaghav 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

Virendra Bhaskarrao Wagh and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ashok Gulab Vaswani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh S/O Haribhau Umbarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anil S/O Vishwanath Pathave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Darbarsing Yuvrajsing Girase and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.