Allowed

Manik Pundlikrao Ingle v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ajni Dist Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC24 Oct 2024APL/1514/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought to quash an FIR wherein a father accidentally shot his son with a licensed firearm. The High Court, noting the settlement, the close kinship, and the fact that the injured son is now maintained by the father, allowed the application and quashed proceedings despite the use of a dangerous weapon.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed and disposed of; FIR bearing Crime No.417/2024 quashed and set aside on account of settlement.

Manik Pundlikrao Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:12166-DB

apl11514.24

Judgment

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] No. 1514/2024.

¶7

Manik s/o Pundlik Ingle, Aged about 69 years, Occupation Retired, resident of Plot No.16, Omsai Nagar, Near Chintamani Nagar, Besa Road, Nagpur. ... APPLICANT.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Ajni, District Nagpur. 2.Sau. Veena Nitin Raut Ingle, Aged about 35 years, resident of Plot No.16, Omsai Nagar, Near Chintamani Nagar, Besa Road, Nagpur. ... NON-APPLICANTS.

¶10

Mr. K.Y. Mandpe, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms Dhote, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1. Mr. R.G. Nitnaware, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2. ----------------------------------

Rgd.

Judgment

apl11514.24

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND . ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2024.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶17

Heard. Admit.

¶18

By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

This is an application seeking to quash the first information report bearing Crime No.417/2024 registered with Ajni Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms

¶20

Act, on account of settlement.

¶21

The facts of this case are somewhat unusual where a father

¶22

has fired a bullet from his licensed gun on the leg of his son under fit of anger, which resulted into lodgment of the report by wife of the injured. She has lodged the report stating about the incident. It is

Rgd.

Judgment

apl11514.24

informed that in usual household hustle, the applicant got annoyed, took out his licensed gun, fired at the leg of his son, and therefore the offence for attempt to commit murder has been registered. The investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed. Parties have settled the dispute out of Court.

¶28

It is informed that till date both parties are residing under the same roof, as they are father and son. Today the injured Nitin is present before us, who is accompanied by his wife [informant]. Both informant and injured have filed reply stating about settlement and no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶29

We are well aware that a dangerous weapon like gun is used by which the bullet was shot, which is an offence of concern. However, we are mindful of the fact that the parties are closely related to each other. The injured is son, whilst the applicant/accused is his father. Out of family disagreement, tamper ran high in which the father has fired a bullet at the leg of his son by his licensed gun. It is informed that the injured was admitted in hospital for about 20-25

Rgd.

Judgment apl11514.24

days, and is now discharged. The injured has stated before us that he has lost his job and now has been maintained by his father i.e. applicant/accused.

¶34

The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the police have already initiated proceeding for cancellation of the Arms Licence of the applicant. Moreover, it is updated that the 12 Bore Gun has also been seized by the police.

¶35

Considering the peculiarity of fact, we are inclined to invoke our inherent powers. In view of above, Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. The first information report bearing Crime No.417/2024 registered with Ajni Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act, on account of settlement. is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶36

JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Rgd.

Manik Pundlikrao Ingle v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ajni Dist Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Pundlikrao Ingle v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ajni Dist 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

Raju S/O. Balaji Chhannawar and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Hudkeshwar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Rahul Dagdu Shirsat Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dept. Mumbai and Another.

Devanand S/O Sukhdev Gavai and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Pso Pinjar Ps Taluka Akola

Sandip S/on Sagar Yadav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Wathoda Nagpur and Another

Nandu S/O Ramesh Athawale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Karanja Gramin, Tq. Karnja, Dist. Washim

Namdev Dattu Urwate Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Patan, Dist. Zari Jamni, Dist. Yavatmal