Allowed

Shishir Balkrishna Pataskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2017APPLN/2760/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed two Criminal Applications filed under Section 482 of the CrPC praying for the quashing of an FIR. The investigation was against three accused. A compromise was reached between the applicants (Accused no.2 and no.3) and the informant/complainant. The Court held that continuing proceedings against the applicants would serve no fruitful purpose and allowed the quashing of the FIR a

What did the court decide?

The FIR against Accused no. 2 (Raja) and Accused no. 3 (Shishir) was quashed, while investigation against Accused no. 1 (Rahul) was permitted to proceed.

Shishir Balkrishna Pataskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Cri.Appln.2760/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3507 OF 2017

¶5

Raja s/o Wachrajsingh Thakur Age 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Military Centre, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station, Newasa Police Station, Newasa, Dist. Ahmedngar

¶9

Abasaheb s/o Bapurao Karale, Age 28 years, Occu. Service, R/o Georai,Taluka Newasa, District Ahmedngar ..Respondents

¶10

Mr Sk. M.A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for applicant Mr S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr R.A. Tambe, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶11

WITH -

¶12

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2760 OF 2017

¶13

Shishir Balkrishna Pataskar, Age 38 years, Occu. Service, R/o Krishna-Goopal Housing Society, Bhingar Camp, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar

¶14

.. Applicant

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station, Newasa Police Station, Newasa, Dist. Ahmedngar

¶17

Abasaheb s/o Bapurao Karale, Age 28 years, Occu. Service, R/o Georai,Taluka Newasa, District Ahmedngar ..Respondents

¶18

Mr C.K. Shinde, Advocate for applicant Mr S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr R.A. Tambe, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶19

Cri.Appln.2760/2017

¶20

¶21

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

¶22

DATE : 10th August 2017

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.)

¶24

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, matters are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶25

Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, respondent no.2 has filed the affidavit in Criminal Application No.3507 of 2017 on 12^th July 2017 and on 18^th July 2017 in Criminal Application No.2760 of 2017. It is stated in the said affidavits that the accused no.2 – Raja and accused no.3 – Shishir and the respondent no.2 informant have compromised the matter and settled the dispute amicably. Respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The applicants and respondent no.2 have undertaken that they will maintain cordial relations. The applicants and Respondent no.2 will not create any further litigation against each other. Both of them have withdrawn the allegations against each other and settled the matter amicably.

¶26

We have carefully considered the perused the allegations made in the F.I.R. The main allegation is against accused no.1 Rahul and the case against accused no.2 Raja and accused no.3 Shishir is very weak. In that view of the matter and since the respondent no.2 has filed the affidavit and prayed for quashing the F.I.R. on the basis of amicably settled, we feel that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings based upon Crime No.I-220/2017 registered with Newasa Police Station on 7^th May 2017.

¶27

Cri.Appln.2760/2017

¶28

¶29

4. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Supreme

¶30

Court in Gian singh Vs.State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 in order to give ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the court, the applications deserve to be allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, Criminal Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) to the extent of present applicants only.

¶32

Rule made absolute on above terms. Both the applications stand allowed.

¶33

We observe that investigation can be proceeded against accused no.1 Rahul.

¶34

( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶35

vvr

Shishir Balkrishna Pataskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishir Balkrishna Pataskar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil @ Anna Dnyandeo Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balasaheb S/O. Vishwanath Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit S/O Arun Deshpande and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol S/O. Vasant Wakale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Umashankar S/O. Surajprasad Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan S/O. Ganeshrao Hake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.