Allowed

Sachidanand Calangutcar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2017APL/125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed by an injured party and the informant to quash an FIR regarding Section 337 IPC offences. With the personal presence and voluntary consent of the injured party to withdraw the complaint, the High Court quashed the proceedings relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing despite non-compoundability.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Application for quashing of the FIR is allowed and made absolute based on the consent of the applicant and injured party to withdraw the complaint.

Sachidanand Calangutcar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1/3 * 907-APL-125-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Sachidanand Calangutcar ….Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ashish Dubey i/by Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Advocates for Applicant. Mrs. S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

¶7

CORAM :- R.M. SAVANT & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶8

DATE :- 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The above Criminal Application has been filed for quashing of the FIR No.363 of 2016 registered with Amboli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 337 of IPC. The above Application has been filed by the First Informant, the Injured, in the said incident which took place on 9.9.2016 is his daughter. The First Informant, i.e., the Applicant and the Injured are personally present in the Court . The Injured has filed her affidavit dated 10.8.2017. The relevant extract of the said affidavit which is

¶11

material in the context of the reliefs sought in the present Petition are re-produced hereunder:

¶12

Shivgan

¶13

2/3 * 907-APL-125-2017.doc

¶14

“ That I have no objection if the FIR bearing no.363/2016 registered with Amboli Police Station is quashed by Hon'ble High Court.

¶15

That I have authorised my father Mr. Sachidanand Calangutcar to consent for quashing of the FIR in my absence.

¶16

That I am giving my consent out of my free will and not under any force or coercion or threat.”

¶17

2 The Complainant as indicated above is personally

¶18

present in the Court. He is identified by the learned counsel Mr. Ashish Dubey. He is also identified by his Adhar Card No.8016 5390 5122. When put in the box and querried, he reiterates what is stated in the Writ Petition and states that he would like to withdraw the FIR and the same be quashed and set aside. The Injured Ms. Neha Sachidanand Calangutkar is also personally present in the Court. She is identified by the learned counsel Mr. Ashish Dubey. She is also identified by her PAN Card bearing No.BIMPC8270M. When put in the box and querried, she states that she reiterates what is stated in

¶19

the Writ Petition and states that she would like to withdraw the FIR and same be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Shivgan

¶21

3/3 * 907-APL-125-2017.doc

¶22

3 Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶23

case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC

¶24

466, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings though the offences alleged are non-compoundable. Dictum of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 would also lead to the same conclusion. No useful purpose would therefore be served by keeping the proceedings pendin g . The above Criminal Application is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause ( c ).

¶25

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J)

¶26

Shivgan

Sachidanand Calangutcar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidanand Calangutcar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadashiv Daulat Khandekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Laxman Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Maitreya Services Private Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Shankarji Devda and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Garvit Chopra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohamad Shafi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.