The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a CRADA Raising Quashung of FIR registered under Cheating/Forgery sections, citing amicable settlement and a Civil Court compromise decree precluding further investigation and prosecution.
Criminal Application allowed; FIR No.168 of 2016 quashed; Rule made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
craa4998.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4998 OF 2016
1) Sau. Kalpana Baban Madan,
Age-32 years, Occu:Agri.,
2) Baban Asaram Madan,
Age-38 years, Occu:Agri.,
Both R/o At Keligavan,
Tq-Badnapur, Dist-Jalna.
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Kadim Police Station, Jalna,
Dist-Jalna,
2) Vidyasagar Sadanand Dhilpe,
Age-62 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Bhadadkheda, Tq-Badnapur,
Dist-Jalna.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. M.V. Salunke Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke
Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Public
Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Swapnil Patunkar Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
...
craa4998.16
2
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2017
ORDER :
.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
2.This Application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed praying
therein to quash the F.I.R. No.168 of 2016 dated
28th May 2016 registered at Kadim Police Station,
Dist-Jalna under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the
Applicants and learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 submits that after filing this
Criminal Application, the Applicantsand
Respondent No.2 decided to settle the dispute
amicably and to that effect purshis duly signed by
craa4998.16
3
Sau. Kalpana Baban Madan and Shri Vidyasagar
Sadanand Dhilpe was filed in Regular Civil Suit
No.34 of 2016, which was pending in the Court of
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Badnapur. It is
further submitted that in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, compromise decree
came to be passed by the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Badnapur. The learned counsel appearing
for the Applicants tendered across the Bar copy of
said compromise decree. The same is taken on
record and marked "X" for identification purpose.
4.When the matter was called out in the
Morning Session, the counsel appearing for the
Applicants and Respondent No.2 jointly prayed for
referring the parties before the Registrar
(Judicial) for verification of the terms of
compromise. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial)
has prepared the report and same is placed on
record. The parties were identified by the
respective Advocates appearing for them and it is
craa4998.16
4
stated in the said report that it is voluntary act
of the parties to enter into terms of compromise,
keeping in view the compromise arrived at between
the parties before the Civil Court.
5.The Applicants and Respondent No.2 are
present before this Court. Respondent No.2 stated
that it is his voluntary act to enter into
compromise and settle the dispute amicably since
the elderly persons in the village impressed upon
the informant and the Applicants to settle the
dispute amicably. Respondent No.2 further stated
that since it is his voluntary act with free will
and without coercion to sign the terms of
compromise, he is not going to support the
allegations in the First Information Report No.168
of 2016 registered on 28th May 2016 with Kadim
Police Station, Dist-Jalna for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
craa4998.16
5
6.The Applicants also stated that due to
intervention of elderly persons in the village and
relatives, Applicants and Respondent No.2 decided
to set at rest the dispute amicably and to that
effect even the compromise decree has been passed
on the basis of amicable settlement, by the Court
of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Badnapur.
7.In the light of discussion in foregoing
paragraphs and keeping in view the exposition of
law in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC Page 303, in
our considered view, no fruitful purpose would be
served by continuation of further proceedings
based upon investigation of said F.I.R. No.168 of
2016. It would be exercise in futility since
Respondent No.2 has stated that he is not going to
prosecute the Applicants and support the
allegations in the F.I.R. Therefore, in order to
prevent the abuse of process of law/Court, the
Application deserves to be allowed.
craa4998.16
6
8.Criminal Application is allowed in terms
of prayer clause "B)". Rule made absolute in
above terms.
[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/JAN17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under FIR No.168 of 2016 should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement and compromise decree passed in the civil suit.
Whether the quashing of proceedings would prevent abuse of the process of court given the voluntariness of the appellant's settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶7
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC Page 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sau. Kalpana Baban Madan and Baban Asaram Madan
The State of Maharashtra
Vidyasagar Sadanand Dhilpe
S.S. SHINDE
K.K. SONAWANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court