Arvind @ Bhavdya Sopan Shinde And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

966 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2022 1) Arvind @ Bhavdya Sopan Shinde.

2) Atul S/o Ambadas Shinde.

... Applicants

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra.

2) Manisha W/o Krushna Sasane.

... Respondents ...

Mr. Mahesh P. Kale & Mr. Atul R. Muley, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. S. K. Naikwade, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ...

CORAM :

SARANG V. KOTWAL AND BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE :

01st July, 2022.

PER COURT:

.

This is an application for quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed vide S.C.C. No.62 of 2014, under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of C.R. No.22 of 2013, registered at Pimpalner Police Station, District Beed. This application is filed for quashing by consent as the parties have arrived at settlement. The FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2 against both the applicants.

The gist of the FIR is that on 27th February, 20213, both the applicants approached the informant, they told her that they loved her and held her hand. She raised shouts and her family members came there. After that, the applicants ran away. On this basis, the FIR was lodged and the charge-sheet is filed.

Today, the respondent No.2 has submitted an affidavit before us wherein she has stated that the present crime was registered only out of misunderstanding and sudden provocation. Both the parties have agreed that they do not want to prosecute the cases lodged and to withdraw all the allegations against each other. Thus, she does not have any objection for quashing of these proceedings. In fact, according to her, she has decided to settle the dispute amicably to keep the cordial relations with each other. Both the parties are residents of the same village and in fact they are relatives of each other as mentioned in paragraph No.I of the affidavit. Considering that the alleged offence has taken place long ago i.e. in the year 2013, the parties are related to each other and they have decided to settle the matter, there is no impediment in allowing this application. Hence, the following order:

O R D E R

I.

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C).

II.

The proceedings pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed vide S.C.C. No.62 of 2014, are quashed and set aside.

III.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

[ BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] nga