Allowed

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2021APL/559/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC filed for a disputed sale-purchase transaction. The court found that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the victim voluntarily joined the prayer for quashing, and continued investigation would serve no purpose, thereby depriving the accused of justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; First Information Report (C.R. No.248 of 2021) under Section 420 IPC quashed and set aside.

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.10.01 09:51:20 +0530

¶2

(120) cri.apl-559.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2021

¶5

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode-Patil]
Age 45 years, Occupation – Service ]
Residing at Post Chale,]
Pandharpur Taluka, Dist. Solapur ]….. Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1]The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Pandharpur City Police Station]
Pandharpur,]
]
2]Vijay Maruti Gawde]
Age – 31 years, Occupation – Agriculturalist]
Residing at Post Puj, Taluka Pandharpur]
Dist. Solapur ]….. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Sarang S Aradhye for the Applicant.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Virendra Pethe for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in Court.

¶9

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶10

DATE :30th September 2021

¶11

JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)

¶12

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

¶13

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2The Criminal Application has been filed by the Petitioners for the
following substantial relief :-

¶15

(a) That by appropriate orders as well as directions of this

¶16

1 of 5

¶17

lgc

¶18

(120) cri.apl-559.21.odt

¶19

Hon’ble Court, the First Information Resport being C. R.
No.248 of 2021 dated 03rd May 2021 registered against
the Applicant at the behest of the Respondent No.2 at
Pandharpur City Police Station under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code be kindly quashed.”

¶20

3The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute.

¶21

4The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent has
tendered across the bar the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent. The same is taken
on record.

¶22

5The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court. He is identified by
his advocate. When we interacted with him, he stated that it is his voluntary
act to enter into such settlement and join the prayer of the Applicant for
quashing the impugned FIR.

¶23

6Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent read

¶24

thus:-

¶25

“1 I say that on 03.05.2021 I have filed Criminasl Case registered vide C. R. No.248 of 2021 with Pandharpur Police Station, against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. I say aforesaid FIR has been lodged out of misunderstanding while sale-purchase transaction of a

¶26

2 of 5

¶27

lgc

¶28

(120) cri.apl-559.21.odt

¶29

Tractor. I say that now that we have amicably resolved
the dispute between us and therefore I am filing present
affidavit giving my no objection for quashing of the
aforesaid FIR lodged with Pandhapur Police Station.

¶30

2 I therefore say and submit that in view of the aforesaid circumstances I am giving my no objection for quashing of the FIR annexed to the application at Exhibit A. I therefore say and submit that I have no objection to quash Fir registered vide C. R. No.248 of 2021 with Pandharpur Police Station, Dist Solapur against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code”

¶31

7Since the Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent have amicably settled

¶32

the dispute and the 2nd Respondent has filed the affidavit thereby giving no
objection for quashing the impugned FIR, and during the course of interaction
the 2nd Respondent stated that it is his voluntary act to enter into such
settlement and join the prayer of the Applicant for quashing the impugned FIR,
no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the further investigation in
IFR vide CR No.248 of 2021 dated 03.05.2021 registered with Pandhapur
Police Station against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Section
420 of the Indian penal Code.

¶33

8In view of the stand taken by the 2nd Respondent to join the prayer

¶34

of the Applicant for quashing the impugned FIR, the chances of conviction of
the Applicant would be bleak and remote.

¶35

9The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh v. State of Punjab

¶36

3 of 5

¶37

lgc

¶38

(120) cri.apl-559.21.odt

¶39

and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It is
further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.

¶40

10 In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and keeping in view the averments in the affidavit filed by the 2^nd Respondent, and the statements made by him during the course of interaction by this Court, we are of the view that, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse the process of law/court, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶41

4 of 5

¶42

lgc

¶43

(120) cri.apl-559.21.odt

¶44

the impugned FIR.

¶45

11In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application deserves to be
allowed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read
thus :-

¶46

(a) That by appropriate orders as well as directions of this Hon’ble Court, the First Information Resport being C. R. No.248 of 2021 dated 03^rd May 2021 registered against the Applicant at the behest of the Respondent No.2 at Pandharpur City Police Station under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code be kindly quashed.”

¶47

12Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Criminal

¶48

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]

¶50

5 of 5

¶51

lgc

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode Patil 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

Sandip Shivaji Pise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhay Rajaram Ahire and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhanubai Shantilal Makwana Vs Administrator of Dnh and Daman and Diu and Ors.

Sanjeev @ Sanjay @ Tatyasaheb Nagnath Upade Vs the Comissioner of Police Solapur and Ors.

Tanaji Ramchandra Bansode Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nilesh @ Banya Suresh Daware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.