Allowed

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2017WP/601/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs were disposed of by a High Court bench. The court observed that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and the dispute was resolved voluntarily. Relying on Gian Singh, the court quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.24 of 2016 and proceedings arising therefrom were quashed; rules made absolute; petitioners and respondent No.2 to execute the compromise.

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) crwp601.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2016 WITH

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2017

¶5

* * * * *

¶6

	`CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF`	`2016`
`1.`	`Vijay s/o. Basweshwar Lamture` `..` `Age. 25 years, Occ. Education`	`Petitioners`
`2.`	`Vijayshree w/o. Chandrakant Bhusare` `Age. 28 years, Occ. Household`
`3.`	`Ashabai w/o. Mahaling Lamture` `Age. 48 years, Occ. Household`
	`All R/o. Yusuf Wadgaon, Tq. Kaij,` `Dist. Beed.`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `..` `Through Police Inspector` `Police Station, Yousuf Wadgaon,` `Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.`	`Respondents`
`2.`	`Mayuri w/o. Ranjeet Lamture` `Age. 20 years, Occ. Household,` `R/o. C/o. Rameshwar Shidhaling Sambre,` `Near Old Police Station, Kaij,`
	`Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.`

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2017

¶9

	( 2 ) crwp601.16
`1.`	`Ranjit Basweshwar Lamture` `..` `Petitioners` `Age. 30 years, Occ. Nil,`
`2.`	`Basweshwar Ramling Lamture` `Age. 60 years, Occ. Retired,` `R/o. As above.`
`3.`	`Kamal Basweshwar Lamture` `Age. 55 years, Occ. Household,`
	`All R/o. Yousufwadgaon, Tq. Kaij,` `Dist. Beed.`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `..` `Respondents` `Through Police Inspector` `Yousuf Wadgaon Police Station,` `Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.`
`2.`	`Mayuri w/o. Ranjeet Lamture` `Age. 20 years, Occ. Household,` `R/o. Yusuf Wadgaon, Kaij,` `Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.`
`Mr.`	`H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners.`
`Mr.` `Mr.`	`M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State.` `S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.`
	`CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &` `S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.` `DATED :` `01.08.2017`

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : S.S.SHINDE,J.] :-

¶11

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
with the consent of the parties.

¶12

2.Pursuant to the notices issued to the

¶13

respondents, respondent No.2 has caused appearance
through Advocate Mr.S.B. Choudhari in both the writ
petitions. The petitioners and respondent No.2 have
filed a compromise pursis duly verified before the
Section Officer of the Registry of this Court. The
parties are identified by the learned Counsels appearing

¶14

for them. The identity proof is also placed on record.

¶15

3.It is stated in the compromise pursis that the
petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled the matter

¶16

amicably on the terms and conditions stated in the said
compromise pursis. The HMP No.39 of 2017 is filed before

¶17

the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai for divorce
with mutual consent. As per the settlement arrived at
between the parties the petitioner - Ranjit Basweshwar

¶18

Lamture paid Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to
respondent No.2 on 17.03.2017, in presence of two
witnesses out of the Court and respondent No.2 has

¶19

received the said amount. There are other details stated
in the compromise pursis. Since the said compromise
pursis is a part of record of this Court, it is not
necessary to reproduce other minute details stated in the
said compromise pursis.

¶20

4.Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2

¶21

submits that the amount of Rs.3 lakhs which is given by
the petitioner - Ranjit to respondent No.2 is deposited
in the saving account of respondent No.2, namely, Mayuri
in account No.1457104000053978, in IDBI Bank, Kaij.
Though the amount is deposited in the saving account,

¶22

during the course of hearing of present petition
respondent No.2 and her father, who are present in the
Court, have decided to keep the said amount in the fixed

¶23

deposit. In the light of said statement of respondent
No.2, we expect that said amount be deposited in the

¶24

fixed deposit within two weeks from today, in the name of
respondent No.2, initially for two years. If said amount

¶25

is deposited in the fixed deposit, we make it clear that

¶26

respondent No.2 will be entitled to receive accrued
interest on the said amount quarterly i.e. after every
three months. We also make it clear that it will be open
for respondent No.2 to renew the said fixed deposit.

¶27

5.Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have
amicably settled the dispute and on interaction with
respondent No.2, she stated that it is her voluntary act
without any coercion to agree for such settlement, we are

¶28

of the view that no purpose will be served by further
investigation in FIR No.24 of 2016 and continuation of

¶29

the proceedings arising out of said FIR. Continuation of

¶30

said proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Gyansingh reported in

¶31

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has

¶32

taken a view that if the parties have amicably settled

¶33

the dispute voluntarily and if the offences are not
punishable with death or life imprisonment or under the

¶34

Special Act like the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. in

¶35

that case in order to secure ends of justice and to

¶36

prevent abuse of process of law, the High Court while
exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can

¶37

quash the FIR or the charge-sheet as the case may be.
Keeping in view the exposition of law in the case of Gian

¶38

Singh (Supra), we pass the following order :-

¶39

(i)Both the criminal writ petitions are
allowed.

¶40

(ii)Rule made absolute in both the

¶41

criminal writ petitions in terms of prayer
clause (B).

¶42

(iii)The criminal writ petitions are
allowed to above extent and same stand disposed
of.

¶43

.Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this

¶44

judgment.

¶45

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶46

snk/2017/AUG17/ crwp601.16

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture 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

Hausaji S/O. Bhaurao Jagdambe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat S/O. Vishwanath Devkar Vs Jaishree S/O. Rajabhau Devkar and Anr.

Jaishree Rajabhau Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish S/O. Ram Sarwade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Madhav Malve Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Others

Nagesh Gangadhar Vibhute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others