Amar Arjun Patil And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2019 Shri Amar Arjun Patil Occ. Service,
2. Shri Vijay Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Shri Prakash Rajamar Patil Occ. Agriculturist,
4. Shri Amar Bhimrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Village Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra Through Kurundwad Police Station Kurundwad Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.
2. Shri Santaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date:
2023.08.07 11:45:31 +0530
3. Shri Dhanaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist LATA SUNIL PANJWANI
4. Shri Umesh Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist Page No. 1 of 9
5. Shri Bandu Ramrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist
6. Shri Arun Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist
7. Shri Chandrakant Bapu Patil Occ. Agriculturist
8. Shri Sachin Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2019
1. Shri Santaji Jaysing Patil Occ. Agriculturist
2. Shri Dhanaji Jayusing Patil Occ. Agriculturist
3. Shri Umesh Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist
4. Shri Bandu Ramrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist
5. Shri Arun Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist Page No. 2 of 9
6. Shri Chandrakant Bapu Patil Occ. Agriculturist
7. Shri Sachin Bajrang Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur
...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra Through Kurundwad Police Station Kurundwad Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.
2. Shri Amar Arjun Patil Occ. Service,
3. Shri Vijay Arjun Patil Occ. Agriculturist,
4. Shri Prakash Rajamar Patil Occ. Agriculturist,
5. Shri Amar Bhimrao Patil Occ. Agriculturist All r/at Village Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur.
... Respondents Mr Kiran C. Shirguppe for Petitioners in wp 375/2019. Ms.Anushka Shreshtha for petitioner in wp 326/19 and respondent in wp 375/19.
Mr K.V. Saste, APP for the State.
Page No. 3 of 9
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 06 JULY 2023 Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. The petitions are taken up for final disposal. The learned counsel appearing for the parties waive notice on behalf of the respective parties.
3.
The Criminal Writ Petition No.375/2019 is filed for quashing the C.R.No.48/2008, registered against the petitioners with Kurundwad Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 326,324,379,427,504, 506,143 and 147 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 135 of B.P. Act and the proceedings arising from it vide R.C.C. No.60/2008, pending before the learned JMFC, Kurundwad.
4.
The Criminal Writ Petition No.326/2019 is filed for quashing the C.R. No.46/2008, registered against the petitioners with Kurundwad Police Station for the alleged Page No. 4 of 9
offences punishable under sections 326,323,504,506,143,147 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of B.P. Act as well as for quashing the judgment of conviction delivered by the learned JMFC, Kurundwad in R.C.C. No.74/2008 dated 25 February 2010, against which an appeal vide a Criminal Appeal No.12/2010 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur.
5.
The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.375/2019 are Respondents No.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.326/2019, and the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 326/2019 are Respondents No.2 to 8 in Writ Petition No.375/2019.
6.
Both the aforesaid FIRs are with respect to the same incident that occurred on 18 May 2008. On the day of the incident, they assaulted each other outside Raigad Palace Dhaba and filed FIR against each other.
7.
These petitions are filed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid FIRs and conviction order passed in consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.46/2008. In both the petitions, Petitioners and Respondents have filed Consent Terms stating that they are relatives and matter is amicably settled between them and that Page No. 5 of 9
due to some misunderstanding, respective FIRs were lodged against each other.
8. The Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions are present before the Court and are identified by their respective counsel. Respondent No.2 Santaji Jaysing Patil, Respondent No.8 Sachin Bajrang Patil and Respondent No.4 Vijay Arjun Patil and Respondent No.3 Dhanaji Jaysing Patil in WP No.375/2019, and Respondent No.2 Amar Arjun Patil in WP No.326/2019 have tendered their consent affidavits. The Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions have also tendered their Consent Terms extending the consent for quashing the respective FIRs lodged by them against each other and are identified by their counsel. When questioned, they confirmed the contents of their respective affidavit and the consent terms. Learned APP has verified their original Aadhar cards.
9.
The learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the parties want to put an end to their dispute and lead a peaceful life. They submitted that even after the conviction, the matter could be amicably settled. In support of their contention, they relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Page No. 6 of 9
Supreme Court in Rajeevan & Anr. v/s. State of Kerala & Ors.1. According to them, even otherwise the trial in R.C.C. No.74/2008 is vitiated as the cross cases were not tried together.
10.
We have examined the facts of these cases. It is not in dispute that both parties lodged an FIR against each other in respect of the same incident. The trial was concluded in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.46/2008; however, the trial arising out of FIR No.48/2008 is still pending. In this respect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal & Ors v/s. State of U.P. & Anr.2 observed in para-2 as follows:
"2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate 1 2014 ALL MR (Cr.) 4188 SC 1990 Supp SCC 145 Page No. 7 of 9
judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."
11.
Considering the nature of the allegations, the nature of the dispute between the parties, their relations with each other, the amicable settlement between the parties, the prayer of the Respondents in these petitions and the settled principle of law in the cases of Rajeevan (supra), Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr.3 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr.4 there appears to be no impediment to allow these writ petitions subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- by each of the Petitioners in both the petitions with Kirtikar Law Library, Mumbai. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No.46/2008 and the conviction order of the 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
4 (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Page No. 8 of 9
learned JMFC, Kurundwad, in RCC No.74/2008 dated 25 February 2010 against which an appeal vide Cr. Appeal No.12/2010, is pending before the Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur. The Petitioners are acquitted of the said offence. Similarly, we allow the Writ Petition No.375/2019 in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings pending before learned JMFC, Kurundwad in the matter Regular Cr. Case No.60 of 2008, its FIR registered at Kurundwad Police Station, its C.R. No. 48/2008 under Section 326, 324,379,504,506, 143,147 of IPC and B.P. Act under Section 135."
12.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in both the Criminal Writ Petitions subject to payment of cost as directed above.
R. N. LADDHA, J.
NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Lata.S.Panjwani, P.S.
Page No. 9 of 9