Balasaheb Mahadev Shirsath And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 Cri.A-1927-17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1927 OF 2017 1.

Balasaheb Mahadev Shirsath Age : Major, Occu. Defence Service 2.

Ashok Mahadev Shirsath Age : 39 years, Occu. Agril.

3.

Ashok Ramkisan Shirsath Age : Major, Occu. Agril.

4.

Walmik Ramkisan Shirsath Age : Major, Occu. Agril.

All R/o Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi Dist. Ahmednagar ...APPLICANTS versus 1.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, PATHARDI Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Bappasaheb Uttamrao Shirsath Age : 60 years, Occu. Agri., Takali Manoor, Tq. Pathardi Dist. Ahmednagar.

...RESPONDENTS .....

Mr. A.N. Sikchi , Advocate for applicants Mr. K.D. Munde, APP for Respondent No. 1- State Mr. K.G. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No. 2 ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 3rd MAY, 2017.

JUDGMENT : ( Per: S.S. Shinde, J.) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2 Cri.A-1927-17 2.

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, compromise pursis on behalf of applicants and respondent No. 2 is tendered by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The same is taken on record. The applicants and respondent No. 2 are present in the Court hall. The are identified by their respective counsel. The applicants and respondent No. 2 have admitted their signatures and contents of the compromise pursis. It is stated in the said compromise pursis that applicants and respondent No. 2 arrived at amicable settlement and they jointly pray for quashing the impugned FIR bearing crime No. 182 of 2017 registered with Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC.

3.

We have interacted with applicants and respondent No. 2. On interaction, respondent No. 2 stated that he is uncle of applicants and it is his voluntary act to become a party the compromise pursis is without any coercion or pressure. The applicants and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute. We have interacted with applicants, they assures this Court that henceforth they will not indulged in alleged activities. Since respondent No. 2 in view of compromise pursis is not going to support first informant report, continuation of investigation - proceedings on the basis of crime No.182 of 2017 registered with

3 Cri.A-1927-17 Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC would be abuse of process of law and no fruitful purpose would be served. Since respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations, there is bleak chances of conviction of applicants.

4.

Considering the compromise pursis between the parties and keeping in view the exposition of law of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another1 and in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another2, further continuation of investigation - proceedings based upon crime would be abuse of process of law and wastage of time of the prosecution agency and the Court. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C". The impugned FIR stands quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- [ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK

1. (2014) 6 SCC 466 (2012)10 SCC 303