Allowed

Narayan Ramrao Ingle v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chikhli Dist.Buldhana and Anohthr

Bombay HC10 Oct 2024APL/199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applications to quash an FIR for outraging modesty and voluntarily causing hurt, registered after an incident at a Gram Panchayat office. The parties settled with village intervention and the informant consented. The court found the offence not heinous and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.784 of 2021 quashed and set aside; criminal applications allowed.

Narayan Ramrao Ingle Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chikhli… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 34.34A.apl.199.2022.200.2022

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2022

¶4

Narayan Ramao Ingle ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶5

AND

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.200 OF 2022

¶7

Prashant Gulabrao Jadhav

¶8

..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶9

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

- - - - Shri Sachin Awchar, Advocate for the applicants. Smt. Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Syed Owais Ahmed, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.

¶11

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 10/10/2024.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Both applicants are similarly seeking to quash the First Information Report No.784 of 2021 registered with the Chikhali Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of settlement.

¶14

The informant lady was a member of Local Gram Panchayat. It is her case that, on 01.12.2021, around 11.15 a.m., a meeting was held at Gram Panchayat office. After meeting, when the informant has asked for proceeding book, applicant Narayan Ingle (in Criminal Application No.199/2022) behaved arrogantly and by pulling her hand, outraged her modesty. At the

¶15

2 34.34A.apl.199.2022.200.2022

¶16

relevant time, applicant Prashant Jadhave (in Criminal Application No.200/2022) was present, who has also pulled her saree, and therefore, the offence.

¶17

Since both sides are in habitants of same village, member and employee of the Gram Panchayat, with an intervention of villagers the matter has been amicably settled. The informant lady is present before the Court, who is identified by her Counsel Shri Syed Owais. She has filed an affidavit-in-reply stating about the settlement. On our query, she has stated about the settlement and gave no objection to quash the proceedings.

¶18

The offence cannot be termed as heinous or antisocial. The parties are the resident of same village, hence to maintain harmony, the matter is settled. In the circumstance, continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of Court.

¶19

In view of the above, the criminal applications are allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report No.784 of 2021 registered with the Chikhali Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The Criminal applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶21

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

¶22

Trupti

Narayan Ramrao Ingle v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chikhli Dist.Buldhana and Anohthr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Ramrao Ingle v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Chikhli Dist.Buldhana and Anohthr

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

Sheikh Gaffar @ Abdul Gaffar S/O Sheikh and Another Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso A.T.S. Mumbai

The Deputy Chief Engineer, Central Railway Division, Ajani, Nagpur Vs Shri.Jagdamba Devi and Shri Shankarji Devasthan,Yavatmal Thr. Kulbhushan Gokulprasad Tiwari and Ors.

Nanda Wamanrao Thosar and 6 Others Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Akot Dist.Akola and Another

Sahebrao @ Nitin Wishram @ Isram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. (Special) Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Icici Home Finance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer Umesh Gadkari Vs the Superintendent of Police Amravati (Rural) and Others

Amit Shamgir Gosavi and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Vasant Nagar Ps, and Another.