Sunil Shantaram Kamble And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

sat 1/2 wp 256-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 256 OF 2016 Mr.Sunil Shantaram Kamble & Anr.

...Petitioners

vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr.Sandesh V. More for Petitioners.

Mr.Hemant Ghadigaonkar for Respondent No.2.

Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

29 JANUARY 2016 P.C. :

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and learned APP for the State.

The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR No.158/2015 registered with Govandi Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Pending investigation, the parties settled their disputes amiably and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, filed the present application for quashing the subject FIR, by consent. Respondent No.2, accordingly, has filed an affidavit affirmed on 21 January 2016. In para 4, he has made a statement to the effect that he wants to support the present petition. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the court. He confirms the contents of the affidavit. On specific query, he states that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. He also states that he is giving consent out of free will and without there being any pressure or undue influence.

sat 2/2 wp 256-2016.doc Be that as it may, it can 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. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065), we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs needs to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the Petitioners to the Kirtikar Law Library. The Petitioners shall pay the costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which The petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the court. Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of. (S.C. GUPTE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)