Allowed

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

Bombay HC8 Aug 2017APPLN/623/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal application considered the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC following an amicable settlement between the applicant and respondent No. 2. The Court held that the settlement was voluntary and uncoerced.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications (Criminal Applications 623 and 4031 of 2017) allowed; FIR Cr. No. 03/2017 quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Amit S/O Arun Deshpande and Others Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

APPLN623.2017.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2017

¶5

1]	Amit S/o Arun Deshpande, Age : 22 years, Occu. Education, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
2]	Gangadhar S/o Banshidarrao Deshpande, Age : 87 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
3]	Anjali W/o Arun Deshpande, Age : 40 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
4]	Minakshi W/o Madhukar Deshpande, Age : 43 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
5]	Damini D/o Madhukar Deshpande @ Ragini W/o Subham Deshmukh, Age : 20 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
6]	Vitthal S/o Madhukar Deshpande, Age : 16 years, Occu. Education, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.
	Under Guardian natural mother Minakshi Madhukar Deshpande.
7]	Angha D/o. Arun Deshpande, Age : 17 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Pathri Road, Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶6

APPLN623.2017.odt

¶7

¶8

Under Guardian natural mother Anjali Arun Deshpande. … Petitioners

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigating Officer Crime No. 03/2017, registered with Police Station, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶11

Shriram Ganpatrao Zirpe, Age : 37 years, Occu. Wanisangam, R/o. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents

¶12

Mr D. A. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr N. G. Talekar, Adv for the applicants Mr S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent/State

¶13

Mr P. K. Ipper, Advocate h/f Mr Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶14

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4031 OF 2017

¶15

1] Arun S/o Gangadhar Deshpande, Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril, R/o. Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶16

2] Madhukar S/o Gangadhar Deshpande, Age : 48 years, Occu. Agril, R/o. Wanisangam, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. … Petitioners VERSUS

¶17

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigating Officer Crime No. 03/2017, registered with Police Station, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶18

¶19

APPLN623.2017.odt

¶20

Shriram Ganpatrao Zirpe, Age : 37 years, Occu. Wanisangam, R/o. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents

¶21

Mr D. A. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr N. G. Talekar, Advocate for the

¶22

applicants Mr S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent/State

¶23

Mr P. K. Ipper, Advocate h/f Mr Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶24

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

¶25

DATE : 08.08.2017.

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. S. SHINDE, J.) :-

¶27

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

¶28

the consent of the parties.

¶29

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 has filed affidavit. The applicants and respondent No. 2, who are present before the Court, stated that they have decided to settle the dispute between them amicably and compromise terms to that effect duly verified by them before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, are placed on record. The parties are identified by their respective counsel.

¶30

¶31

APPLN623.2017.odt

¶32

Learned APP for the State has made available the papers of

¶33

investigation.

¶34

Having interacted with the applicants and respondent No.2, they stated that, it is their voluntary act & without coercion they have arrived at the settlement and informant has no objection to quash the FIR registered against the applicants.

¶35

We have carefully perused the allegations contained in the FIR, the investigation papers and the compromise terms placed on record by the parties. The alleged offences are registered under Sections 341, 327, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The maximum punishment provided for the offence u/s 327 of the IPC is 10 years imprisonment and for offence u/s 324, three years imprisonment. The said offences are not compoundable and, therefore, we have considered the prayer of the parties for compromise by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The nature of assault is personal and it does not appear to be offence against the society. In view of the compromise, the chances of conviction are bleak.

¶36

¶37

APPLN623.2017.odt

¶38

Since the applicants and respondent No. 2 have settled the

¶39

dispute between them amicably so as to maintain peace and to have cordial relations with each other and such settlement is arrived at between the parties without any coercion, keeping in mind the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 & Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 All MR (Cri) 1886 (S.C.) in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, we are inclined to accept the compromise terms. Hence, the following order.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

[i] Both the Criminal Applications are allowed.

¶42

[ii] First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 03/2017 registered against the applicants on 07.01.2017 with Sonpeth Police Station, Dist Parbhani, for the offences punishable u/s Sections 341, 327, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act, stands quashed and set aside.

¶43

Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶44

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

sgp

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit S/O Arun Deshpande 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Sukhdev Pawar. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sainath Shaharam Gavahane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rajendra @ Raju Rambhau Yadav and Ors.

Shaikh Saber S/O. Shaikh Usman Patel and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Syed Gani Syed Abdual Raheem Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department Matralaya, Mumbai and Others

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