Amit Harisingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Amit Harisingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) — quashing of F.I.R. C.R. No. 88 of 2022 registered with Railway Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar (Sections 307, 509, 323, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC) and consequential proceedings — subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to Legal Services Sub-committee, High Court, Aurangabad; compliance listed for 02nd July, 2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 88 of 2022 registered with Railway Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 509, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Court's answer

Judgment rendered PER COURT: having gone through the consent terms signed by Respondent No.2 (wife/complainant) and Petitioner No.1 alongwith their respective counsel, and on Respondent No.2's stated consent to allow the petition in toto, the criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) — i.e., quashing of F.I.R. C.R. No. 88 of 2022 and the consequential proceedings — subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Legal Services Sub-committee, High Court, Aurangabad.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad), per R.G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. (decision dated 24.06.2024), allowed Criminal Writ Petition No. 157 of 2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Amit Harisingh Rathod and others for quashing of F.I.R. C.R. No. 88 of 2022 registered with Railway Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 509, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The crime arose on the report of Respondent No.2 (wife) alleging that Petitioner No.1 (husband) tried to push her out of a running train; a charge-sheet had been filed after investigation. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were stated to be employees of Indian Railways. Respondent No.2, present in-person, submitted that the matter stood compromised between her and Petitioner No.1, tendered consent terms signed by her and Petitioner No.1 alongwith their respective counsel, and consented to allow the petition in toto. The Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Legal Services Sub-committee, High Court, Aurangabad, and stood the matter over to 02nd July, 2024 for compliance. Neutral citation as printed: 2024:BHC-AUG:11703-DB. No precedent was cited and the quashing rested on the consensual compromise, not adjudication on merits.

92-WP-157-23.odt

2024:BHC-AUG:11703-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2023

Amit Harisingh Rathod and Others ..PETITIONERS VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Another

..RESPONDENTS

Ms. Kirti Ahuja, Advocate for petitioners

Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State

Mr. A.D. Chapule, Advocate h/f Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2

.indian railway...

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 24^th JUNE, 2024

PER COURT :

This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the F.I.R., bearing C.R. No. 88 of 2022 registered with Railway Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Section 307, 509, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential proceeding arising therefrom.

The aforesaid crime was registered on the report lodged by Respondent No.2 – wife alleging that Petitioner No.1 – husband tried to push her out of a running train. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

1 / 2

92-WP-157-23.odt

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2, whereas Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the employees of Indian Railways.

Respondent No.2 – wife, who is present in-person, submits that the matter has been compromised between her and Petitioner No.1. She tenders across the bar copy of the consent terms which are signed by her and Petitioner No.1 alongwith their respective counsel. She gives consent to allow the petition in toto.

We have gone through the consent terms. In view of the same, criminal writ petition is allowed, in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to be paid to Legal Services Sub-committee, High Court, Aurangabad.

Stand over to 02^nd July, 2024, for compliance.

( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )

SSD

2 / 2