Allowed

Santaji Jaysing Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2023WP/326/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two connected criminal writ petitions filed by parties involved in a mutual assault incident. Relying on amicable settlement and consent from all parties, the court quashed the FIRs and convicted persons under relevant IPC sections, emphasizing that cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried together by the same judge.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.46/2008 and conviction order in RCC No.74/2008; acquitted petitioners; allowed writ petition 375/2019.

Santaji Jaysing Patil and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

wp 375.19-326-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2019

¶4

Shri Amar Arjun Patil

¶5

Occ. Service,

¶6

2. Shri Vijay Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist,

¶7

3. Shri Prakash Rajamar Patil Occ. Agriculturist,

¶8

4. Shri Amar Bhimrao Patil
 Occ. Agriculturist
All r/at Village Sainik Takali,
Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.State of Maharashtra Through Kurundwad Police Station

¶12

Kurundwad Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶13

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2023.08.07 11:45:31 +0530

¶14

2. Shri Santaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶15

3. Shri Dhanaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶16

4. Shri Umesh Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶17

Page No. 1 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶18

wp 375.19-326-19.doc

¶19

5. Shri Bandu Ramrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶20

6. Shri Arun Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶21

7. Shri Chandrakant Bapu Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶22

8. Shri Sachin Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur … Respondents

¶23

WITH

¶24

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2019

¶25

1. Shri Santaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶26

2. Shri Dhanaji Jayusing Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶27

3. Shri Umesh Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶28

4. Shri Bandu Ramrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶29

5. Shri Arun Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶30

Page No. 2 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶31

wp 375.19-326-19.doc

¶32

6. Shri Chandrakant Bapu Patil Occ. Agriculturist

¶33

7. Shri Sachin Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur

¶34

...Petitioners

¶35

Versus

¶36

1.State of Maharashtra Through Kurundwad Police Station

¶37

Kurundwad Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶38

2. Shri Amar Arjun Patil Occ. Service,

¶39

3. Shri Vijay Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist,

¶40

4. Shri Prakash Rajamar Patil Occ. Agriculturist,

¶41

5. Shri Amar Bhimrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Village Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. … Respondents

¶42

Mr Kiran C. Shirguppe for Petitioners in wp 375/2019.
Ms.Anushka Shreshtha for petitioner in wp 326/19 and
respondent in wp 375/19.

¶43

Mr K.V. Saste, APP for the State.

¶44

Page No. 3 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶45

wp 375.19-326-19.doc

¶46

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶47

 DATE : 06 JULY 2023

¶48

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶50

2.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the
consent of the parties. The petitions are taken up for final
disposal. The learned counsel appearing for the parties waive
notice on behalf of the respective parties.

¶51

3.The Criminal Writ Petition No.375/2019 is filed for
quashing the C.R.No.48/2008, registered against the
petitioners with Kurundwad Police Station for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 326,324,379,427,504,
506,143 and 147 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section
135 of B.P. Act and the proceedings arising from it vide
R.C.C. No.60/2008, pending before the learned JMFC,
Kurundwad.

¶52

4.The Criminal Writ Petition No.326/2019 is filed for
quashing the C.R. No.46/2008, registered against the
petitioners with Kurundwad Police Station for the alleged

¶53

Page No. 4 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶54

wp 375.19-326-19.doc offences punishable under sections 326,323,504,506,143,147 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of B.P. Act as well as for quashing the judgment of conviction delivered by the learned JMFC, Kurundwad in R.C.C. No.74/2008 dated 25 February 2010, against which an appeal vide a Criminal Appeal No.12/2010 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur.

¶55

5.The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.375/2019 are
Respondents No.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.326/2019, and the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 326/2019 are Respondents
No.2 to 8 in Writ Petition No.375/2019.

¶56

6.Both the aforesaid FIRs are with respect to the same
incident that occurred on 18 May 2008. On the day of the
incident, they assaulted each other outside Raigad Palace
Dhaba and filed FIR against each other.

¶57

7. These petitions are filed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid FIRs and conviction order passed in consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.46/2008. In both the petitions, Petitioners and Respondents have filed Consent Terms stating that they are relatives and matter is amicably settled between them and that Page No. 5 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶58

wp 375.19-326-19.doc due to some misunderstanding, respective FIRs were lodged against each other.

¶59

8. The Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions are
present before the Court and are identified by their respective
counsel. Respondent No.2 Santaji Jaysing Patil, Respondent
No.8 Sachin Bajrang Patil and Respondent No.4 Vijay Arjun
Patil and Respondent No.3 Dhanaji Jaysing Patil in WP
No.375/2019, and Respondent No.2 Amar Arjun Patil in WP
No.326/2019 have tendered their consent affidavits. The
Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions have also
tendered their Consent Terms extending the consent for
quashing the respective FIRs lodged by them against each
other and are identified by their counsel. When questioned,
they confirmed the contents of their respective affidavit and
the consent terms. Learned APP has verified their original
Aadhar cards.

¶60

9.The learned counsel for the respective parties submitted
that the parties want to put an end to their dispute and lead a
peaceful life. They submitted that even after the conviction,
the matter could be amicably settled. In support of their
contention, they relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶61

Page No. 6 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶62

wp 375.19-326-19.doc Supreme Court in Rajeevan & Anr. v/s. State of Kerala & Ors. 1. According to them, even otherwise the trial in R.C.C. No.74/2008 is vitiated as the cross cases were not tried together.

¶63

10. We have examined the facts of these cases. It is not in
dispute that both parties lodged an FIR against each other in
respect of the same incident. The trial was concluded in the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.46/2008; however, the trial
arising out of FIR No.48/2008 is still pending. In this respect,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal & Ors v/s. State of
U.P. & Anr.2observed in para-2 as follows:

¶64

“2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter
like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct
that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases
one after the other. After the recording of evidence in
one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but
he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter, he must
proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the
evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the
judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must
thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate

¶65

1 2014 ALL MR (Cr.) 4188 SC

¶66

2 1990 Supp SCC 145

¶67

Page No. 7 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶68

wp 375.19-326-19.doc judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.”

¶69

11. Considering the nature of the allegations, the nature of
the dispute between the parties, their relations with each
other, the amicable settlement between the parties, the prayer
of the Respondents in these petitions and the settled principle
of law in the cases of Rajeevan (supra), Gian Singh v/s. State
of Punjab & Anr.3 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of
Punjab and Anr.4 there appears to be no impediment to allow
these writ petitions subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-
by each of the Petitioners in both the petitions with Kirtikar
Law Library, Mumbai. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the
impugned FIR No.46/2008 and the conviction order of the

¶70

3 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶71

4 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶72

Page No. 8 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

¶73

wp 375.19-326-19.doc learned JMFC, Kurundwad, in RCC No.74/2008 dated 25 February 2010 against which an appeal vide Cr. Appeal No.12/2010, is pending before the Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur. The Petitioners are acquitted of the said offence. Similarly, we allow the Writ Petition No.375/2019 in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:

¶74

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings
pending before learned JMFC, Kurundwad in the matter
Regular Cr. Case No.60 of 2008, its FIR registered at
Kurundwad Police Station, its C.R. No. 48/2008 under
Section 326, 324,379,504,506, 143,147 of IPC and B.P. Act
under Section 135.”

¶75

12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in both the
Criminal Writ Petitions subject to payment of cost as directed
above.

¶76

R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶77

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶78

Lata.S.Panjwani, P.S.

¶79

Page No. 9 of 9 ______________________________________________ 06 July 2023

Santaji Jaysing Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santaji Jaysing Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Anil Sahadeo Sali and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hari Bhachubhai Mujat and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Som Samir Chatterjee Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amar Arjun Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohidas Gulab Pashankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Hila Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.