Allowed

Jitendra S/O Malhari Gaikwad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2016APPLN/4387/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal applications and quashed FIRs after finding that rival parties, who are relatives, had amicably settled their disputes and admitted the settlement terms. The court held that maintaining the proceedings would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications allowed; FIRs 164/2016 and 165/2016 quashed and set aside.

Jitendra S/O Malhari Gaikwad and Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4392 OF 2016
(Vilas s/o Bhanudas Mundhe and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another)

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4387 OF 2016
(Jitendra s/o Malhari Gaikwad and others Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and another)

¶5

Mr. M.B. Sandanshiv, Advocate for the applicants in
Cri. Application No. 4392/2016 and for respondent No. 2
in Cri. Application No. 4387/2016
Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants in Cri.
Application No. 4387/2016 and for respondent No. 2 in
Cri. Application No. 4392/2016
Mr. S.W. Munde, A.P.P. for the respondent/State in
both the applications

¶6

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 26th September, 2016

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants in both applications and the learned A.P.P.
We have also heard the respective informants, who have
been identified by their respective learned Advocates.
They have lodged reports against each other, on the
basis of which Crime Nos. 164/2016 and 165/2016 have
been registered against the respective respondents. In
Crime No. 164/2016, the offences alleged are under

¶10

criapln4392-4387-2016

¶11

¶12

Sections 354A, 324, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section

¶13

34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”), while
in Crime No. 165/2016, the offences alleged are under
Sections 392, 452, 354C, 504 and 506 read with Section
34 of the I.P.C.

¶14

2.The informant in Crime No. 165/2016 namely

¶15

Rekha Jitendra Gaikwad has filed an affidavit stating
therein that at the time of the incident, her gold
mangalsutra had dropped at the spot of the incident and
it was subsequently found by her husband. As such, the
ingredients of the offence under section 392 of the
I.P.C. are not prima facie disclosed on her sworn
statement. The rival parties have amicably settled
their disputes since they are relatives of each other
and they wish to maintain peace and harmony. They have
decided to drop the allegations levelled by them against
each other.

¶16

3.The terms of settlement are now read over and
explained to them. They admit the same voluntarily.

¶17

The terms of settlement are valid. In the

¶18

circumstances, there is no point in keeping these

¶19

criapln4392-4387-2016

¶20

¶21

matters pending any more. Even if they are kept alive,

¶22

considering the amicable settlement between the parties,
they would not support the allegations made by them
against their rivals during the trial. As such, it
would be a futile exercise to continue with the trial.
In the circumstances, we accept the amicable settlement

¶23

between the parties and pass the following order:-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(i)Both the criminal applications are allowed.

¶26

(ii) The FIR Nos. 164/2016 and 165/2016, registered with Partur Police Station are quashed and set

¶27

aside.

¶28

npj/criapln4392-4387-2016

Jitendra S/O Malhari Gaikwad and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra S/O Malhari Gaikwad and Others 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

Sadiq S/O Babamiya Mulani Inamdar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

1. Shaikh Sardar Shaikh Noor. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Santosh S/O Narayan Kukar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Limbaji Raghunath Salgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod S/O Balkrushna Kulkarni and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mithesh S Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others