Sonu S/O. Ravindra Bawane And Others v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station House Officer, P. S. Desaiganj Dist. Gadchiroli And Anothe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 378 OF 20 Sonu s/o Ravindra Bawane and others

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra Thr.P.S.O. Desaiganj,Dist. Gadchiroli and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.P. Ghule, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for State/Respondent No. 1. CORAM :

P.B. VARALE AND, MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ .

DATE : 07/07/2017.

Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

The applicants are before this Court for seeking quashment of charge sheet no. 61/2017 filed before Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C. Court, Desaiganj in Regular Criminal Case No. 10/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 324, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for applicant and nonapplicant no.2 submitted before this Court that though initially the report was filed, subsequently the parties have

arrived at a settlement and are desirous of having the peaceful and healthy relations between the parties. It is submitted that the continuity of the proceedings would result in strained relation between the parties. It is submitted that the parties have arrived at settlement on their free will and without any pressure. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 states that the respondent no.2 wants to burry the strain relationship in the hatchet and decided to live in future peacefully. Parties are present in this Court and agree that they have settled their dispute amicably without any pressure. In view of the above referred facts and in view of the affidavit in reply filed by non-applicant no.2, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-(a) and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE JUDGE Nandurkar