Quashed

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso., Police Station Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal

Bombay HC23 Sept 2021APL/820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC after reaching a settlement regarding offences under Sections 377, 511, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.279/2019 for offences under Sections 377, 511, 323, 504 and 506 IPC are quashed and set aside.

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim and Another Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Cri.APL No.820.21-J.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 820 OF 2021

¶5

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim, Aged : 24 Yrs. Occp. : Home Maker, R/o. Prabhat Nagar, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.

¶6

Mohd. Nazim Mohd. Nizam, Aged : 45 Years, Occp. : Business, R/o. Opposite Shivaji High School, Prabhat Nagar, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Distt. Pusad. ….. APPLICANTS ---VERSUS--State of Maharashtra, Through P. S. O., Police Station Vasant Nagar, Pusad. ….. NON-APPLICANT

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri U. J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri V. A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.

¶8

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 23.09.2021.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶12

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging Criminal Proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.279/2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad on the basis of

¶13

charge-sheet dated 11.10.2019 in connection with Crime

¶14

2 Cri.APL No.820.21-J.odt

¶15

No.474/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 511, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicant No.2 with the accusations that the applicant No.2 had forcible unnatural sexual intercourse with the applicant No.1 and also assaulted the applicant No.1. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicant No.2.

¶17

During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have mutually resolved their dispute and have jointly filed the present application challenging the Criminal Proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad.

¶18

Today, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are present in the Court. It is agreed that the applicant No.2 shall be paying an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the applicant No.1 towards permanent alimony. The applicant No.1 stated before the Court that she has settled the dispute with the applicant No.2 out of her free-will and there is no force on her to settle the dispute.

¶19

Taking into consideration the nature of the offences, we are of the view that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it is advisable that, the

¶20

3 Cri.APL No.820.21-J.odt

¶21

Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly over-burdened, as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

¶22

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in view of settlement between the parties, we are satisfied that there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings against the applicant No.2.

¶23

We therefore, pass following order.

¶24

The Criminal Proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.279/2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pusad on the basis of charge-sheet dated 11.10.2019 in connection with Crime No.474/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 511, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

¶25

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

RGurnule

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso., Police Station Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso., Police Station Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal

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

Dewanand Dattrao Bhoje Vs State of Mah., Thr. Additional Chief Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and 8 Other

Suresh Mansaram Dakhane Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Purada Tq. Kurkheda Dist. Gadchiroli

Tushar S/O. Anil Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Ramnagar, and Anr.

Nargis Sheikh Ahad and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Talegaon Tah.Arvi Dist.Wardha

Dr. Purushottam S/O. Marotrao Kalbhoot Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Wardha (City)

Mr. Madan S/O Madhukarrao Yerawar, R/O Vs the State of Mah, P.So. Awdhutwadi Police Station Godhani