Allowed

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Mar 2017APPLN/638/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings following an amicable settlement by the Applicant/Victim and accused parties for offences including voluntarily causing grievous hurt and criminal intimidation, citing the futility of prosecution when the accused offer no support.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application disposed of; Rule made absolute to quash the charging sheet and consequent proceedings.

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

craa638.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2017

¶6

`1) Vishwanath s/o Kondiba Vaidya,` `Age-48 years, Occu:Labour,`
`2) Kailas s/o Vishwanath Vaidya,` `Age-30 years, Occu:Labour,`
`3) Vilas s/o Vishwanath Vaidya,` `Age-30 years, Occu:Labour,`
`4) Mankarna w/o Vishwanath Vaidya,` `Age-42 years, Occu:Labour,`
`All R/o-Adgaon, Tq-Basmath,` `Dist-Hingoli.` `...APPLICANTS` `VERSUS`
`1) The State of Maharashtra,` `Through Police Station Incharge,` `Hatta, Tq. & Dist-Hingoli,`
`2) Gulab s/o Subhanrao Kharate,` `Age-38 years, Occu:Grocery Business,` `R/o-Adgaon, Tq-Basmath, Dist-Hingoli,`
`3) Manik s/o Subhanrao Kharate,` `Age-40 years, Occu:Agri.,` `R/o-Adgaon, Tq-Basmath, Dist-Hingoli.` `...RESPONDENTS`

¶7

craa638.17

¶8

¶9

...

¶10

 Mr.N.B. Patekar Advocate h/f. Mr. P.R.
 Katneshwarkar Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.Fayaz K. Patel Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

...

¶12

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

¶13

 DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2017

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶16

heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶17

2.This Application is filed by the

¶18

Applicants praying therein to quash and set aside
the proceeding of charge-sheet bearing R.C.C.
No.206 of 2006 pending before the learned J.M.F.C.

¶19

Court No.3, Basmath, Dist-Hingoli arose on the
basis of Crime No.33 of 2006 for the offence
punishable under Sections 448, 324, 323, 504, 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

craa638.17

¶21

¶22

3.Pursuant to the notice issued to the

¶23

Respondents, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have caused
appearance through learned counsel. The Applicants
and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed the joint
affidavit duly sworn and verified before the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. It is stated
in the said affidavit that the incident had taken
place in sudden provocation and now the parties
have settled their dispute amicably and their
relations are cordial. It is also stated in Para 4

¶24

of the affidavit that the Applicants have
undertaken that henceforth they will live
peacefully and maintain the cordial relations and
they have also undertaken that henceforth they
will not create the litigation against each others
and will live in co-operation.

¶25

4.We have interacted with the Applicants
who are present in the Court and they have assured

¶26

this Court that henceforth they will not indulged
in alleged activities like in past.

¶27

craa638.17

¶28

¶29

5.Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also present

¶30

in the Court. They have stated that it is their
voluntary act to enter into compromise and on the
basis of said settlement/ compromise, they have no
objection to quash the First Information Report
and consequent proceedings based upon the said
First Information Report.

¶31

6. In that view of the matter and

¶32

considering the fact that except offence under
Section 324 of the I.P. Code all other alleged

¶33

offences are compoundable, we are of the opinion
that in order to prevent the abuse of process of
Court, the settlement deserves to be accepted and
further proceedings deserve to be quashed. Since
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not going to support

¶34

the prosecution case and therefore, further
continuation of proceedings will be exercise in
futility and wastage of valuable time of the
Court. In that view of the matter, keeping in view

¶35

craa638.17

¶36

¶37

the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another1, we are inclined to allow this
Application.

¶38

7.Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (B) to the Application. Criminal
Application stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶39

[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶40

asb/MAR17

¶41

12012(4) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 428

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

Manohar Chimaji Chalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalyan S/O Balaji Shrirame and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khwaja Munawar Sultana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.