Allowed

Sunil Kishor Chaurasiya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2019APL/1381/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed cross FIRs filed for personal disputes after parties settled their dispute and the original complainants consented to quashing. The court allowed the applications subject to mandating parties to pay costs to Tata Memorial Hospital.

What did the court decide?

FIRs bearing C.R. Nos. I 310 of 2018 and I 309 of 2018 registered at Arnala Police Station were quashed and set aside.

Sunil Kishor Chaurasiya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

7-apl-1380-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1380 OF 2018

¶4

Jagrut Suryakant Raut & Ors. … Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1381 OF 2018

¶9

Sunil Kishor Chaurasiya & Ors. … Applicants Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Applicants.

¶12

Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶13

Mr.Vaibhav Ashok Patil, Respondent No.2-present in person in APL No.1380 of 2018.

¶14

Mr.Dushant Deepak Patil, Respondent No.2-present in person in APL No.1381 of 2018.

¶15

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J J.

¶16

DATE : 19^th MARCH 2019

¶17

P.C.:-

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicants seek leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

¶19

N.S. Kamble 1/4

¶20

7-apl-1380-2018.doc

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP and respondent No.2 in both APL present in person.

¶22

Criminal Application No.1380 of 2018 is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.I 310 of 2018 registered with Arnala Police Station, District-Palghar for an offence punishable under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Criminal Application No.1381 of 2018 is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.I 309 of 2018 registered with Arnala Police Station, District-Palghar for an offence punishable under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The FIRs referred herein above are cross FIRs revolving around the same incident.

¶25

Pending investigation, parties settled their dispute and have approached this Court for quashing respective subject FIR by consent.

¶26

The Respondent No.2-original complainant in respective FIR have filed separate affidavits dated 19.03.2019. The affidavit gives consent for quashing of FIR. The respondent No.2 in both petitions and complainants are present before us. On specific query, they have made a statement that they have gone through the petition and affidavit and understood the contents thereof. They specifically state that they have no objection to quash the

¶27

N.S. Kamble 2/4

¶28

7-apl-1380-2018.doc

¶29

subject FIRs against the present applicants.

¶30

Both the respondent No.2 have placed on record xerox copy of the PAN/Aadhar Card in support of their identity.

¶31

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW

¶32

2065], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

¶33

However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes. Hence, we quash and set-aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.I 310 of 2018 and I 309 of 2018 registered with Arnala Police Station, District-Palghar.

¶34

Accordingly, the subject FIRs are quashed and applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to following:

¶35

N.S. Kamble 3/4

¶36

7-apl-1380-2018.doc

¶37

(i) The applicant in each petition shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- in each of the application by way of costs to Tata Memorial Hospital within the period of four weeks from today and place the receipt of the same on record.

¶38

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶39

N.S. Kamble 4/4

Sunil Kishor Chaurasiya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kishor Chaurasiya and Ors. 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

Asha Under Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Prin. Secretary, Forest and Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Pravin Narayan Baikar and Ors. Vs Subhash Lingu Ghune and Anr.

Ridge Innovations Private Limited and Ors. Vs Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund and Anr.

Jagrut Suryakant Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akhtar Usman Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anish Shailesh Shah and Anr. Vs Vlcc Personal Care Ltd. and Anr.