Allowed

Manoj Purshottam Parteki v. the State of Maharashtra through P.S Pratap Nagar Nagpur and Another.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2023APL/1681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The court held that since the incident was an unintentional road accident leading to a monetary settlement and the injured party had no objection, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal prosecution SCC No. 309856/2015 arising out of Crime No. 541/2014 is quashed and set aside. Applicant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur.

Manoj Purshottam Parteki Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

Judgment

921 APL 1681.23

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1681/2023

¶6

Shri Manoj Purshottam Parteki,
Age 38 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.19, Rajiv Nagar,
Navin Bidipth, Nagpur.

¶7

 …. APPLICANT

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.

¶10

2. Sau. Madhvi V. Deshpande, Age-54 yrs., Occ. Homemaker, R/o. Flat No.103, Vignaharta Apartment, Hingana T. Point, Takli Sim, Nagpur.

¶11

…NON-APPLICANTS

¶12

Mr. N.S. Jadhao, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. S. Kolhe, Addl, Public Prosecutor (‘APP’) for non-applicant
No.1/State
Mrs. S. S. Jachak, APP for non-applicant No.2.

¶13

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND

¶14

 M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
 DATE: 19.12.2023.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

Judgment

921 APL 1681.23

Heard.

¶20

2. Admit .

¶21

3.This is an application seeking to quash charge-sheet
arising out of Crime No. 541/2014 registered with Police Station
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code on account of settlement.

¶22

4.On 07.12.2014 in the late evening, informant lady along
with her husband were returning to their house on foot. When they
came near the place of occurrence, the accused came in high speed
by riding on motorcycle and gave forceful dash from backside to the
informant’s husband causing him serious injury. The informant’s
husband was admitted to the hospital and then she has lodged
report.

¶23

5.The Police have completed investigation and filed charge-
sheet. The Trial Court has framed charge and examined two
witnesses. In the meantime, the parties arrived on settlement. The
applicant (accused) has paid medical expenses of the injured. Since

Judgment

921 APL 1681.23

the occurrence was unintentional, the informant and her husband
agreed to settle the matter as the expenses have been born by the
applicant. The applicant and informant have filed joint affidavit
stating about the settlement and there no objection to quash the
proceeding. Both are present before us who are identified by their
Advocates. They would submit that they are not inclined to go on
with the prosecution.

¶28

6.The applicant is working in the Police Department. It is
submitted that it is a case of pure accident, meaning thereby there
was total absence of mens rea. Continuation of the prosecution may
attract disqualification of applicant after conviction, if any. The
applicant has paid medical expenses tuning to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the
informant.

¶29

7.The trial has already been commenced, in which evidence
of two witnesses has been recorded. The stage of trial equally carries
importance while entertaining an application for quashing. The
power vested with this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is uncontrolled which can be exercised at any

Judgment

921 APL 1681.23

stage in befitting cases. The alleged offence cannot be termed as
heinous or anti-social. Already, the injured has been adequately
reimbursed, however, we have pointed to the applicant that
unnecessarily the Police and the Courts spent time in entertaining the
matter. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, upon instruction would submit that the applicant would
deposit Rs. 25,000/- towards cost.

¶34

8.Having regard to the nature of occurrence, monetary
settlement and non-inclination of the informant and injured,
continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court, particularly, the offence is outcome of a road accident.

¶35

9.In view of above, we deem it appropriate to invoke our
inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. Hence, application
is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside criminal prosecution
bearing SCC No. 309856/2015 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur arising out of Crime No. 541/2014
registered with Police Station Pratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code on

¶36

Judgment 921 APL 1681.23

¶37

¶38

account of settlement.

¶39

10.The applicant shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the High
Court Bar Association, Nagpur within a period of four weeks from
today.

¶40

11. The matter be place for noting compliance on 18.01.2024.

¶41

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

¶42

Gohane

Manoj Purshottam Parteki v. the State of Maharashtra through P.S Pratap Nagar Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Purshottam Parteki v. the State of Maharashtra through P.S Pratap Nagar 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

Neela Vipul Raja Vs Vipul Mukundbhai Raja

Vinod Shashikant Ingle Vs Special Police Inspector General (Prison) East Region Nagpur and Another

Chotu @ Srinumulla Gawade Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Dhamaracha Tehsil Ahiri Dist. Gadchiroli.

Praveen @ Pradeep Ramesh Pohankar (C-6274) Vs Special Police Inspector General (Prison) (East Region), Nagpur and Another.

Mangesh @ Balu Manoharrao Sourangpate Vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Ps, Ram Nagar Wardha and Another

Mangesh @ Balu Manoharrao Sourangpate Vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Ps, Ram Nagar Wardha and Another