Prashant Sharad Bhuse v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2017 Prashant Sharad Bhuse.

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Mr. S. P. Kadam for the Petitioner.

Mr. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

Mr. R. M. Pawar for Respondent No. 2.

Coram : Ranjit More & A. S. Gadkari, JJ.

Date : July 27, 2017.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the State.

2.

The petition is filed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR. No. 65 of 2015 registered with Baramati Police Station at the instance of Respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The quashment of the said FIR is sought qua the Petitioner only.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation of the above FIR, with the help and intervention of friends and well1 / 3

wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, present petition is filed for quashing the above FIR qua the Petitioner only, by consent of Respondent No. 2. 4.

Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit dated 27th July 2017. In paragraph 5, he has given no objection to quash the subject FIR against the Petitioner only. 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 subject FIR initiated by him against the Petitioner only. 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. 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.

2 / 3

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 FIR against the Petitioner only. Accordingly, application is allowed and subject FIR is quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner only.

7.

As the police 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 Petitioner with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to the "Tata Memorial Hospital" an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients. For the quashment to take effect, the Petitioner 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. 8.

It is made clear that the concerned Police Station shall carry out the investigation and take further steps in accordance with law as far as other accused persons are concerned.

[A. S. GADKARI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3 / 3