Allowed

Pramod @ Chhotu Chandrikaprasad Mishra and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S. Mankapur, Dist.Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2024APL/1339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal prosecution as an abuse of process of the court in a neighborhood dispute settled by mutual agreement. The court held the offenses were not heinous and noted the complainants' no objection to quashing.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Registration of Case (RCC) No. 49/2018 and prosecution quashed and set aside.

Pramod @ Chhotu Chandrikaprasad Mishra and Another Vs the… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:10806-DB

Judgment

34 apl 1339.24

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1339/2024

¶7

Pramod @ Chhotu Chandrikaprasad Mishra, aged about 51 yrs., Occ. Private, R/o. Plot No.27, Ingole Layout, Mankapur, Nagpur ( accused No.1 ).

¶8

Himanshu Subhash Pande, Aged 28 yrs., Occ. Private, R/o. near Shiv Mandir, Ingole Layout, Ganga Nagar Zhopadpatti, Nagpur ( accused No.2 )

¶9

... APPLICANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Mankapur, Nagpur.

¶12

Soni Prakash Kohle, Aged 45 yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.50, Ingole Layout, Mankapur, Nagpur. ( First Informant/Complainant/Victim )

¶13

Sandhya Rajesh Kohle, Aged 42 yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.50, Ingole Layout, Makapur, Nagpur. ( victim ) ... NON-APPLICANTS

¶14

Mr. J.S. Chilotra, Advocate for applicants. Mr. A. Badar, APP for non-applicant No.1. Mr. D.M. Dixit, non-applicant No.2 & 3. ----------------------------------

Judgment

34 apl 1339.24

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25.09.2024.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Admit .

¶22

This is an application seeking to quash prosecution vide RCC No. 49/2018 arising out of Crime No. 226/2017 registered with Police Station Mankapur, Nagpur for the offence punishable Sections 448, 354, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of mutual settlement.

¶23

It is informed that the evidence of informant and another victim were recorded, however there is no further prosecution in trial.

¶24

Non-applicant No.2 i.e. informant lady lodged report on 27.10.2017, on the basis of which crime was registered, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet has been filed. It is informant’s contention that on 19.10.2017 on the eve of Diwali Festival, children were bursting

¶25

Judgment 34 apl 1339.24

¶26

¶27

fire-crackers around 08.30 p.m., in front of the house. The informant and her sister-in-law Sandhya (non-applicant No.3) came out of the house. At that time applicant No.2 Himanshu came in high speed by driving his auto rickshaw to which informant asked to drive vehicle in moderate speed. Himanshu got angry and called applicant No.1 Pramod from his house. Both of them threatened the informant and outraged modesty by pulling the garments, hence the offence.

¶28

The parties are neighborhood of each other. They settled the dispute out of the Court. It is brought to our notice that for the same occurrence, rival report has been lodged by Geeta Pande who is mother of applicant No.2 Himanshu. In the said connected report, the parties have settled the dispute. Today, the informant as well as victim are present before use who have been identified by their counsel Mr. D.M. Dixit. They have filed reply-affidavit stating about the settlement and their no objection to quash the prosecution. It reveals that trivial dispute arose between the neighborhood. In order to maintain peace and harmony in the society, the parties have settled the dispute. The offence cannot be termed as heinous and anti-social and thus, continuation of prosecution would be abuse of the process of the Court.

Judgment

34 apl 1339.24

The learned counsel for applicants expressed to deposit cost of Rs. 10,000/- for rotating Police Machinery.

¶33

In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside prosecution vide RCC No. 49/2018 arising out of Crime No. 226/2017 registered with Police Station Mankapur, Nagpur for the offence punishable Sections 448, 354, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of mutual settlement.

¶34

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

¶35

Stand over to 09.10.2024 for noting compliance.

¶36

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶37

Gohane

Pramod @ Chhotu Chandrikaprasad Mishra and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S. Mankapur, Dist.Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod @ Chhotu Chandrikaprasad Mishra and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S. Mankapur, Dist.Nagpur and Others

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

Smt Geetabai Wd/O Dadarao Vaidhya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary

Prafulla Pandurang Shivankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Chichgarth Tah Deori Dist Gondia

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Wardha Vs Smt. Sanjeevani Sharadchandra Upadhye and Others

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Sayad vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer

Gajanan Kashinath Kamble vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Home Dep.(Special) Mumbai and Another

Ashok S/O Panjumal Chelani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Home Dep. (Spl). and 2 Others