Allowed

Pawan Dayaram Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur Tq. and Dist. Nagpur Anfd Another

Bombay HC12 Nov 2024APL/1611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a prosecution for outraging modesty and stalking after the informant and accused settled their differences. The High Court quashed the case, noting the informant no longer wished to prosecute and continuation would be futile, while imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution (RCC No. 630/2022, Crime No. 211/2021) quashed; applicant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- to Government Pleader Library by 11.11.2024.

Pawan Dayaram Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:12237-DB

¶2

1 32apl1611.2024..odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1611 OF 2024

¶5

Pawan s/o Dayaram Chaudhary, aged about 29 yrs, occ. Business, r/o. Near Pandav Engineering College, House No. 32, Vihirgaon, Ayodhya Nagar, S.O. Nagpur Tah. District Nagpur …... APPLICANT

¶6

...V E R S U S...

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, Tah. District Nagpur

¶8

Sona d/o Harendranath Dutta, aged about 28 yrs, Occ. Service, R/o. 40, Manish Nagar, Dattatraya Gruh Nirmal Society, Tah. Dist Nagpur .....NON-APPLICANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

Mr. S. Bhalegaro, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for respondent No.1 /State. Mr. Anirudh Ananthkrishnan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM:- VINAY JOSHI & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 24.10.2024

¶11

JUDGMENT (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)

¶12

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

This is an application seeking to quash criminal prosecution

¶14

2 32apl1611.2024..odt

¶15

bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 630/2022 arising out of Crime No. 211/2021, registered with Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur City, for offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code on account of settlement.

¶16

The informant, educated lady, aged 26 years has lodged report on the basis of which crime has been registered. It is informant’s case that she had old acquaintance with the applicant through common friend. They used to meet intermittently, however, the applicant was making certain advances to which she refused. It is alleged that the applicant was persistently following her and on one day he caught hold her hand, snatched her mobile and outraged her modesty.

¶17

The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The informant has filed reply stating that out of misunderstanding, the First Information Report was filed and now she do not want to go on with the prosecution. The informant is present before us, who is identified by her counsel Mr. Ananthkrishnan. On Court query, the informant stated that the differences have been settled and she do not wish to go on with the prosecution further. It is learnt that the trial Court has already framed charge and matter is fixed for recording of evidence on 16.11.2024. Obviously, the public time has been consumed in the proceedings. At this juncture, the applicant’s learned Counsel would

¶18

3 32apl1611.2024..odt

¶19

submit that the applicant would pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards rotating police machinery. The nature of offnece cannot be termed as anti social or heinous. The informant is not willing to go on with the prosecution meaning thereby there is no purpose in continuation of the prosecution as it would be an exercise in futility. In the circumstances, we are inclined to exercise our inherent powers.

¶20

In view of the above, the application is allowed. The criminal prosecution bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 630/2022 arising out of Crime No. 211/2021, registered with Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur City, for offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶21

The applicant shall deposit sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the Government Pleader Library on or before 11.11.2024.

¶22

List on 12.11.2024 to note the compliance.

¶23

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶24

R. Belkhede, Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Personal Assistant Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/11/2024 11:14:33

Pawan Dayaram Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur Tq. and Dist. Nagpur Anfd Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Dayaram Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur Tq. and Dist. Nagpur Anfd 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant S/O Arjun Chamke Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur

Manish S/O Ratanlal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Home Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Prakash Sahebrao Kolhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Mankapur Dist. Nagpur

Sadguru Bahuuddeshiya Yuwak Mandal Amravati Thorugh Presdent Shri Prabhat S/O Shamlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and 1

Tejrao Namdeorao Ingle Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralaya Mumbai and 2 Others

Akash Shankar Bembare and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Gittikhadan Nagpur City