Vitthal Hiraman Karale And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 269 OF 2021 1.

Vitthal s/o Hiraman Karale Age : 65 years, Occ : Agri., 2.

Ramdas s/o Hiraman Karale Age : 57 years, Occ : Agri., 3.

Ganesh s/o Vitthal Karale Age : 35 years, Occu. : Agri., 4.

Shivaji s/o Ganesh Karale Age : 38 years, Occu : Agri., 5.

Mahadev s/o Kisan Karale Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agri., 6.

Sanjay s/o Ramdas Karale Age : 32 years, Occ.: Agri., 7.

Ashok s/o Vitthal Karale Age : 32 years, Occ.: Agri., All R/o. Agadgaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar .... APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through In-charge Officer, Nagar Taluka Police Station, Nagar, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Laxman s/o Umaji Borude Age : 65 years, Occu : Agri., R/o. Agadgaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist. Ahmednagar .

... RESPONDENTS Shri. Abhijeet P. Avhad, Advocate for the applicants Shri. R. B. Bagul, APP for the respondent/State Shri. A. G. Ambetkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATED : 25-02-2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : T. V. NALAWADE, J.) :- cra269.21.odt

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of the parties for final disposal.

2.

Present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of Crime No. 1130/2020 registered with Nagar Taluka Police Station, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by respondent No. 2. During arguments learned counsels of the applicants and respondent No. 2 submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. They have some dispute of civil nature and civil suit is also pending between them. Today this Court granted relief to them in Criminal Application No. 255 of 2021. They have decided to settle the dispute and they want to live together a peaceful life. 3.

In view of this circumstances, this Court hold that relief needs to be granted. Respondent No. 2 has no objection to grant such relief and such affidavit-in-reply is filed. So the application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause ( B).

4.

Rule made absolute in those terms.

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE , J.] ssp cra269.21.odt