Suraj Radheshyam Pasi And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2019 Suraj Radheshyam Pasi and Others.

..Petitioners.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Ms. Rishita Jain for the Petitioner.

Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. S. S. Karmarkar i/b Saroj Shinde for Respondent No. 2. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

Date : June 17, 2019.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the RespondentState. 2.

By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the proceedings of criminal case bearing CC No.326/PW/2018 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali. The said case arises out of an FIR bearing No. CR. I-522/17 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai. The said FIR came to be registered against the Petitioners at the instance of Respondent No. 2 herein, where the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are with regard to commission of for the offence punishable under sections 354, 509, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the 1 / 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that pendency trial of the above criminal case, with the help of friends and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and in pursuance of the understanding arrived at between them, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of above criminal case by consent of Respondent No. 2. 4.

Before this Court, Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 17th June 2019 wherein she has given no objection to quash the proceedings of the subject criminal case against the Petitioners. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIR /criminal proceedings initiated by her against the Petitioners.

5.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 2 / 3

SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject criminal proceedings pending except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. 6.

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the subject criminal proceedings. Accordingly, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it would be appropriate to saddle the Petitioners with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital" an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients. For the quashment to take effect, the Petitioners shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. [SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3 / 3