Allowed

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Imamvada Ps, Nagpur and Another.

Bombay HC3 Nov 2023APL/1247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Application to quash an FIR regarding extortion (Sections 386/387 IPC) as the parties had mutually settled the dispute. Despite applicants' criminal antecedents, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to maintain local peace, subject to the applicants depositing costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.220 of 2023 quashed and set aside on the condition that applicants deposit Rs.40,000 costs.

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16248-DB

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

	CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1247 OF 20 23
1.	Raju @ Bhikku s/o Rambhau Parchake age about : 42 yrs, Occu Private R/o Medical Road, Near Maitri Buddha Vihar, Rambag, Ajni, Nagpur.
2.	Abhijit @ Sunil s/o Ajay Pahune aged about 25 yrs, Occu. Private R/o Medical Road, Near Maitri Buddha Vihar, Rambag, Ajni, Nagpur.
3.	Nilesh @ Nana s/o Vinod Meshram aged about 26 yrs, Occu. Private R/o Medical Road, Near Maitri Buddha Vihar, Rambag, Ajni, Nagpur.
4.	Ashish s/o Ashok Raghuvanshi Yadav Age about 33 yrs, Occu. Private, R/o C/o Pandurang Wagh, Ward No.122, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ganeshpeth, Mahal, Nagpur. ... APPLICANTS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1.	State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.
	Imamvada Police Station, Nagpur.
2.	Sunny @ Nabi s/o Surajrao
	Rahulkar, Age 36 yrs, Occu. Private
	R/o Haribhau Wanjari House, Behind
	Seema Vastra Bhandar, Rambag,
	Ajni, Nagpur.

¶7

¶8

… NON-APPLICANTS.

¶9

_____________________________________________________________ Shri A. Hunge, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ghurde, Addl.P.P. for the State. Shri Anirudh Ananthakrishnan, Advocate for the non-applicant no.2.

¶10

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M.W. CHANDWANI, J J. DATED : 03.11.2023.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)

¶12

Heard. ADMIT.

¶13

The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.220 of 2023 registered with the Imamvada Police Station, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of mutual settlement.

¶15

The informant was running a grocery shop. It is his contention that the applicants by putting him under threat, have raised monetary demand. Particularly the applicants have demanded sum of Rs.2,000/- for allowing to run a grocery shop. In short, the informant

¶16

¶17

alleges that the applicants were demanding ‘Hapta’ for running the Grocery shop, and therefore, the report for the offence of extortion.

¶18

The parties have mutually settled the dispute. The informant is present in the Court and he is identified by his Counsel Shri Anirudh Ananthakrishnan. He has filed a joint affidavit as well as Compromise Deed stating that the matter has been amicably settled and he do not want to prosecute the criminal case. He would submit that both are residing in the same locality and to maintain cordial relations, he has settled the dispute. The informant gave his no objection for quashing of the FIR. On our query, the informant admitted that the matter is settled and he do not wish to prosecute the criminal case.

¶19

Learned Addl.P.P. has attracted our attention to the crime chart of the accused, which indicates that several offences have been registered against all the applicants. Certainly, the antecedents is one of the factor however it is apparent that the informant himself is not willing to go on with the prosecution. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The informant urged that the applicants always remain in his locality and thus, with the aid and intervention of

¶20

¶21

the elderly, the differences were patched up. It is the informant’s contention that quashing of the proceedings would further to maintain cordial relations and peace in the locality.

¶22

At this juncture, we have brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the Police are required to investigate the matter. So also, the applicants are bagging with criminal antecedents. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the applicants expressed that the applicants would deposit the sum of Rs.40,000/towards the costs.

¶23

Taking over all view of the matter, though the offence of extortion has been registered, no dangerous weapon was used in the commission of offence. The informant is a layman running grocery shop. If the case is kept pending then there is likelihood that till the conclusion of trial, he may be under pressure. On the other hand, it reveals that with the aid of local residents, the matter has been settled. The applicants assure that they would not commit the similar offence further more.

¶24

Considering all above aspects, to maintain cordial relations in the vicinity, we are inclined to invoke our inherent powers. In view of the above, the application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside

¶25

¶26

the First Information Report in Crime No.220 of 2023 registered with the Imamvada Police Station, Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the condition that the applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.40,000/with the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur till tomorrow i.e. on 04.11.2023.

¶27

Place the matter on 06.11.2023 for noting the compliance.

¶28

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶29

Trupti

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Imamvada Ps, Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Imamvada Ps, Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Vitthal Rao Choudhary (in Jail) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Achalpur.

Shrenik S/O Rajendra Munot and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Gondia Rural, Gondia, Maharashtra and Another.

Babanrao S/O Rustamrao Sangale and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Buldhana Tah. and Dist. Buldana and Another

Umesh S/O Ganeshrao Kale Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Arvi Dist.Wardha

Chandrakant S/O. Gopalrao Kumbhare and Another. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Lakadganj, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur.

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 and Another