Allowed

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati and Another

Bombay HC4 Oct 2024APL/153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of an FIR for forgery and cheating over a power of attorney and sale of joint property. The informant confirmed settlement and no wish to prosecute. Holding continuation futile and an abuse of process, the court quashed the FIR with Rs. 25,000 costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR vide Crime No. 494/2023 registered at Police Station Dattapur quashed; applicants to pay Rs. 25,000 costs to Vidarbha Lady Lawyer Association.

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11314-DB

Judgment

952 apl 153.24

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 153/2024

¶7

Kishor s/o Yadavrao Ruikar, Aged about 49 yrs., Occ. Agri./Business, R/o. Waghapur Naka, Bangar Nagar, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal

¶8

Ghanshyam s/o Yadavrao Ruikar, Aged about 51 yrs., Occ. Agri./Business, R/o. Peshve Plot, Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.

¶9

... APPLICANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Dattapur, Tq. Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati.

¶12

Shubhash Tukaram Ruikar, Aged about 63 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o. Pimapalgaon (Ruikar), Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶13

… NON-APPLICANTS

¶14

--------------------------------Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for applicants. Mrs. S.S. Jachak, APP for non-applicant No.1. Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. ----------------------------------

¶15

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 04.10.2024.

Judgment

952 apl 153.24

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Admit .

¶22

By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash First Information Report (“FIR”) vide Crime No. 494/2023 registered with Police Station Dattapur, Tq. Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 199, 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on account of settlement.

¶23

The parties are related to each other. The informant alleges that the applicants have prepared forged and fabricated power of attorney, on the basis of which sold the joint property. The third party purchaser has filed civil suit for injunction against co-accused, applicants and informant. In the said suit, the dispute has been settled. In view of said settlement, the informant has also settled the inter se dispute. The informant filed reply-affidavit stating about the

Judgment

952 apl 153.24

entire history and further added that due to settlement, he does not wish to continue the criminal prosecution.

¶28

The informant has appeared before us who has been identified by his counsel Mr. M.I. Dhatrak. The informant on our query, stated that the matter is settled. He does not wish to go on with the prosecution. The informant stated that he has received the agreed sum and thus, in view of settlement, he does not wish to go on with the prosecution.

¶29

The dispute arose out of private transaction between two parties which cannot be termed as heinous or anti-social in nature. The applicants have agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- jointly towards costs for rotating State Machinery.

¶30

Having regard to the nature of litigation and settlement arrived in between the parties, continuation of prosecution would be futile exercise. Moreover, it is sheer abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside FIR vide Crime No. 494/2023 registered with Police Station

¶31

Judgment 952 apl 153.24

¶32

¶33

Dattapur, Tq. Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 199, 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶34

Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶35

The applicants shall deposit sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards costs to the Vidarbha Lady Lawyer Association High Court Bench at Nagpur within two weeks from today.

¶36

Stand over to 18.10.2024.

¶37

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

¶38

Gohane

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati 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

Jitendra S/O Shivaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja Dist.Buldhana and Another

Vrushabhh @ Vrushikesh @Jabba Umeshrao Wankhede vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Home Dept. (Spl) Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

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

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Dashrath Dharmaji Debur Vs Sepecial Police Inspector General Prison ( East Region), Nagpur and Another

Dhanraj Pralhad Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S. Murtizapur Rural, Dist. Akola