Allowed

Akash Anilkumar Jain v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC5 May 2016APPLN/2380/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application to quash the FIR against the applicant. The court found that the applicant and the private complainant had settled their differences and presented a signed compromise. Observing the personal nature of the allegations and lack of societal impact, citing Supreme Court precedents, the court granted leave to settle and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to C.R.No.I-151/2015 under sections 354 A, C, D, 384, 341, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC shall stand quashed and set aside.

Akash Anilkumar Jain Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cri.Appln.No.2380/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2380 OF 2016

¶5

Akash Anilkumar Jain
Age: 29 Yrs., occu. Business,
R/o Block No. 15, Nandadeep
Housing Society, Bansilal Nagar,
Aurangabad.

¶6

 - APPLICANT

¶7

 VERSUS

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad.

¶9

2) The Police Inspector, Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶10

3) Nikita Mahendra Zambad, Age: 24 Yrs., occu. Business, R/o Plot No.91/92, N-3,CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

*****

¶13

Mr.SV Advant, Advocate for Applicants;
Mr.MM Nerlikar, APP for Resp.Nos. 1 & 2;
Mr.Amit Yadkikar, Adv. For Resp.No.3.

¶14

CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶15

DATE : 5 th May, 2016.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- R.M.BORDE,J.)

¶17

1)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶18

forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for

¶19

the parties, the matter is taken up for final

¶20

2 Cri.Appln.No.2380/2016

¶21

disposal.

¶22

2)The applicant is praying for quashment of

¶23

the proceedings, initiated at the instance of
Respondent No.3, pursuant to registration of the
crime bearing C.R.No.I-151/2015 registered at Police
Station, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, on 7th March, 2015,
for commission of offence punishable under Sections
354 A,C,D, 384, 341, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code.

¶24

3)The applicant and Respondent No.3 have
decided to settle their differences and have
presented the terms of compromise arrived at between
them which are taken on record and marked "X" for
identification. The consent terms are duly signed by
the applicant and Respondent No.3 and their
respective clients, who are present in the court and
have been identified by the respective counsel
representing them. As a token of identification, the
respective counsel have put their signatures on the
terms of compromise.

¶25

4)An affidavit is also presented by the

¶26

3 Cri.Appln.No.2380/2016

¶27

applicant, reiterating the correctness of the consent
terms filed before the Court. The affidavit is taken
on record and marked as "X-1" for identification.

¶28

5)We have perused the allegations recorded in
the subject FIR lodged by Respondent No.3. The
allegations are of personal character and looking to
the allegations contained in the FIR, we do not find
that the alleged offence is having any impact on the
society at large.

¶29

6) On consideration of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. - (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana – (2003) 4 SCC 675 , according to us, this is a fit case for granting leave to the parties to arrive at settlement and

¶30

direct quashment of the FIR. It is also to be taken
note of that even if the matter reaches the stage of
trial, the prosecution is not likely to succeed.

¶31

7)For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal
Application deserves to be allowed and the same is
accordingly allowed. The proceedings initiated

¶32

4 Cri.Appln.No.2380/2016

¶33

against the applicant, pursuant to registration of
the crime bearing C.R.No.I-151/2015 registered at
Police Station, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, on 7th March,
2015, for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 354 A,C,D, 384, 341, 465, 468, 471 and 506
of Indian Penal Code, shall stand quashed and set
aside.

¶34

8)Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶35

sd/-sd/-
 (P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
 JUDGEJUDGE

¶36

bdv/

Akash Anilkumar Jain v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Anilkumar Jain v. 1. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ramesh Gangaram Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikrishna Mahadeo Pedam. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Kisan Baraskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagaji Kashiram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudarshan S/O Shivaji Dhande and Other Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Achyut Godse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.