← Library
Bombay High CourtAPL/1460/2024allowed

Harpalsingh Balwindersingh Sandhu v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Officer In Charge Of Ps Jaripatka Tq And Dist. Nagpur And Another

2025-04-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Pravin S. Patil2 pages

2025:BHC-NAG:4341-DB 903.apl.1460.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1460 OF 2024 Harpalsingh S/o. Balwindersingh Sandhu and others .Vs.

State of Maharashtra, through PS Jaripatka, Distt. Nagpur and another _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. P. J. Mehta, Advocate for the applicants Mr G. S. Umale, APP for the respondent No.1/State Mr Aakash Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM :

ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED :

APRIL 25 , 2025 .

Both the learned counsel for the applicants and respondent No.2/complainant point out the affidavit of respondent No.2/complainant and submit that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 has been settled. 2.

Yesterday, when the matter was listed before this Court, the applicants and respondent No.2 were personally present before this Court and admitted the fact of settlement. 3.

In the present matter, the prayer is for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2018 filed in Crime No. 775 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian

903.apl.1460.2024.odt Penal Code. Except offence under Section 363, all other offences are compoundable.

4.

In the circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narinder Singh and others .v/s. State of Punjab and another, reported in, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and further considering that in light of settlement even if the trial is permitted to proceed, it will be a futile exercise. Hence, we are of the opinion that the applicants cannot be forced to face the trial. 5.

Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata s