Prince Raman Khanna v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1272 OF 2016 Prince Raman Khanna ...

Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...

Respondents *** Mr. Mahesh Thorat a/w C. G. Jadhav, for the Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, for Respondent No. 1 - State. Ms. Shubhangi Sarang, for Respondent No. 2.

*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 30, 2016 PC.

1.

This is application is filed for quashing a criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the I. P. Code vide C. R. No. 134 of 2015 with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai. 2.

The complainant's son and the Applicant were studying in the same college. It was alleged that Applicant / accused had taken amount of Rs. three lakhs from Respondent No. 2 father for the 1 / 3

admission of his son in Siddharth college. They have amicably settled the dispute. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. The Applicant is a young boy of 23 years. He is taking education in the college. The complainant and his son are present in the Court. We had directed both the parties to remain present alongwith their parents, so that we can talk to Applicant's parents. Applicant's mother is present. Since the complaint has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC, and the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, we are of the view that ratio of the judgments in the cases of - (i) Narinder Singh & Ors., Appellants Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Respondents [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; and (ii) Gian Singh, Appellant Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr., Respondents [(2012) 10 SCC 303] will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. We are also of the view that the applicant and the complainant's son should realise their mistake, and should ensure that in future they will not commit such mistake, which will spoil their career and name of the parents.

other Division Bench of this Court. Even we had asked the other coaccused to remain present. However, it appears that since the counsel for the applicant is not appearing, they could not contact. So, the matter is kept at 5.15 p.m. in the chamber. We have met parents and the children in the chamber. They have expressed remorse towards the incident. We are satisfied that quashing of the complaint is in the interest of the applicant, complainant's son and their respective family. Criminal application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), and is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sd/- [Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 3 / 3