Siddheshwar Baba Kalel And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

SSK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2867 OF 2015

1. Siddheshwar Baba Kalel

2. Rameshwar Baba Kalel

3. Someshwar Baba Kalel

4. Dhanaji Sayyappa Kalel

5. Satish Tulshiram Kalel

6. Hanmant Ragnath Kalel ....Petitioners versus 1.The State of Maharashtra

2. Mohan Sidhram Kalel ....Respondents Mr. P. A. Pol i/b. Pol Legal Juris, advocates for the petitioners. Mr. K. V.Saste, APP for the State.

Mr. A. S. Patil, advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED : 20th JULY, 2015.

P.C.:

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

2.

The petition is filed for quashing and setting-aside FIR No.88 of 2015 registered with Mhaswad Police Station, Mhaswad, Tal-Man, District-Satara, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 327, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

3.

Pending investigation, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and have approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 20th July, 2015, and in paragraph 5 thereof, he has given no objection for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that whatever has been stated in the said affidavit is true and correct and he has no objection for quashing the subject FIR. 4.

It can, thus, be seen that the dispute was totally personal in nature, which has now been settled amicably. In these circumstances and especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and ors. versus State of Punjab and anr. 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. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the FIR is required to be quashed and set-aside. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes. 5.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioners. The petitioners shall deposit the costs with Kirtikar Law Library and thereafter Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

produce the receipt thereof on the file of this petition within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the criminal writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court. 6.

Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shubhada S Kadam 3/3