Yashasvi Yogesh Ravnang v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1202 OF 2016 Yashasvi Yogesh Ravnang.

..Applicant.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents.

Mr. Amogh Khadye i/b Mr. A. A. Sathe for the Applicant. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

Mr. Harshwardhan Salgoonkar for Respondent No. 2. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : July 25, 2017.

P. C. :

1.

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

2.

The application is filed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR. No. 54 of 2016 registered with Kandvali Police Station at the instance of Respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

Admittedly, the Petitioner is daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that pending investigation of above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties 1 / 3

amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, present application is filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No. 2.

5.

Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 1st October 2016. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit she has given no objection for quashing the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Applicant for the offence punishable under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6.

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 2 / 3

subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

7.

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. In that view of the matter, criminal application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3 / 3