Rajesh Govardhan Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2964 OF 2015 Rajesh Govardhan Jadhav ..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents Mr. Y.D.Patil for the Petitioner.

Mr.Pankaj Deokar, for the Respondent No.2.

Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State. Not on Board. On production, taken on board. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 14, 2015.

P.C.

1.

Heard.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 undertakes to file vakalatnama within a week. Undertaking accepted.

3.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. with the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of C.R.No. 104 of 2014 registered with R.A.K. Marg

Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.

Pending investigation parties settled their dispute amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the subject C.R by consent. 5.

The respondent no.2 has filed affidavit dated 14th August, 2015. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, no objection is given for quashing the proceeding of the s C.R.No.104 of 2015.

6.

Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, he submitted that he has made the said statement in the 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 criminal proceedings in question initiated by him against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7.

It can thus be seen that the dispute between the parties is settled. The allegation made against the petitioner is personal in nature and no element of public law is involved in the crime. In the 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 criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. 8.

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 criminal proceedings. 9.

Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 9.

As a condition precedent for this order to take effect, the Applicant shall pay costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Bombay and produce a copy of the receipt on the file of this petition within a period of two weeks from today.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)