Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya v. The Senior Inspector Of Police And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2543 OF 2017 Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya.

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Mr. N. S. Mundargi i/b Swapnil Wagh for the Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.

Mr. S. D. Patil for Respondent No. 2.

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : July 19, 2017.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the State. The petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR. No.I-184/2016 registered with Sinnar Police Station, Nashik, EoW for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with 120B of IPC. The said FIR is registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 herein. 2.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that pending investigation of above FIR, parties have settled their disputes amicably and in pursuance of the understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing of the subject FIR by consent.

1 / 3

3.

Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit dated 29th June 2017. In paragraph 3 he has given no objection for quashing the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, he submitted that he has made the said affidavit on his own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. He has further confirmed that he has no objection for quashing the FIR in question initiated by him against the Petitioners.

4.

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. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 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 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

5.

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 2 / 3

that there is no impediment in quashing the subject FIR. Hence, writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). As the police machinery and the Court machinery was used by the parties to settle their private disputes as a corollary of differences of opinion, we find it would be appropriate to saddle the Petitioners with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to "Shanti Avedhna" 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 FIR shall be treated as non-est. [SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3 / 3