Allowed

Niraj S/O Mahavir Gadiya and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2017APPLN/6288/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application to quash FIR No. 0904/2016 for offences under sections 394, 323, 324, 504, and 34 of the IPC based on a joint compromise pursuit filed by the applicant and respondent No. 2, who voluntarily settled their dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside FIR No. 0904/2016 registered under sections 394, 324, 323, 504, 34 of IPC.

Niraj S/O Mahavir Gadiya and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 Cri.A-6288-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6288 OF 2016

¶4

Niraj Mahavir Gadiya Age: 15 years, Occ. Student (11^th Standard) pursuing his education at Shriman P.H. Jain Science (Sr.) and Shriman Pemrajaji Dalichandji Surana Arts, Commerce & Science Jr. College, Neminagar, Chandwad – 423 101. Dist: Nashik Permanent Resident of Sansthan Ganpati, Sadhana Apartment, Raja Bajar Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶5

Through his Natural Guardian Shri. Mahavir Sampatraj Gadiya, Age: 50 years, Occu. Business, Resident of Sansthan Ganpati, Sadhana Apartment, Raja Bajar Aurangabad(Mah.) ...APPLICANT

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra At the instance of Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

¶8

Mr. Santosh S/o Sudhakar Sonawane, Age: 22 years, Occu: Student, (Pursuing- Second year- B.C.A.) resident of Laghuvetan Colony, Dange Classes, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. A.D. Ostwal, Advocate for applicant Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent State Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent no. 2

¶10

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 27^th FEBRUARY, 2017.

¶12

2 Cri.A-6288-16

¶13

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and APP for the respondent No. 1 – State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

¶16

Pursuant to notices issued to the respondents, applicant and respondent No. 2 has filed joint compromise pursis dated 18-01-2017 on record. Respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit-inreply and additional affidavit in-reply. It is stated in the joint compromise pursis that, the incident occurred on 09-11-2016 and during the pendencny of present application, the parties have arrived at compromise as they have amicably settled their dispute. The said joint compromise pursis is signed by the applicant and respondent No. 2 duly verified before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The parties are identified by their respective learned Counsel.

¶17

Respondent No. 2 has filed additional affidavit in-reply on record. It is stated in said reply that, since he had lost his chain on the date of incident, therefore, after the altercation he was frightened in the night, and therefore, immediately lodged the first information report (for short “FIR”), however, when along with his friend he again went to the place of incident to search the golden chain, he found the same on the spot of incident. He did not

¶18

3 Cri.A-6288-16

¶19

further persuade the first information report as the matter is amicably settled between them.

¶20

We have interacted with applicant and respondent No. 2, who are present in the Court. The applicant and respondent No. 2 have stated that they have voluntarily entered into the compromise and filed the joint compromise pursis and additional affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the joint compromise pursis that, they have decided to settled their dispute amicably without any coercion or pressure and pray to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

¶21

Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the avertments in the affidavit-in-reply and additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is abundantly clear that the ingredients of sections 394 of the IPC are not attracted/disclosed. The other alleged offences are punishable under sections 323, 324, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since respondent No. 2 – first informant voluntary filed affidavit-in-reply, additional affidavit-in-reply and joint compromise pursis and prays to quash and set aside the FIR, no fruitful purpose would be served in case the proceeding on the basis of crime bearing No. 0904 of 2016 registered with Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections 394, 323, 324, and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is allowed to be continued.

¶22

4 Cri.A-6288-16

¶23

In light of the discussion herein-above and keeping in view the expositions of law in the cases of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another¹ , Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab² and Shiji Alias Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another³ we are inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause “C”, which reads as under.

¶24

“ [C] That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the crime / F.I.R. Registered vide F.I.R. No. 0904/2016 dated 10-11-2016 with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad under Section 394, 324, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.”

¶25