Raju @ Viswas and Others vs The State of Maharashtra and Another

Shrihari P. Davare, J.—Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

This is an application preferred by the applicants (original accused) u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the charge sheet bearing R.T.C. No. 93/2010, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon (District: Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 of Indian Penal Code, and u/s 4/25 of Arms Act, and also u/s 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act.

It is alleged by the respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant, that the Sub-Divisional Officer has seized storage of sand in September 2009, and Panchanama to that effect was also prepared. At that time, the complainant Amol, and his friends, namely, Mahesh Ramnath Gore, Anil Kundlik Ghortale, Chandrakant Vishnu Wable and Wasim Ansar Shaikh have signed the documents/ Panchanamas. It is alleged that since the said sand belonged to one Nitin Kakde, Mahesh Gore started hunger strike, and at that time, complainant went to meet Mahesh Gore, but Nitin Kakde deterred him. Hence, on 17-9-2009, present applicants assaulted respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant, and in that attack respondent no. 2 became unconscious. On the basis of said allegations, FIR came to be lodged by respondent no. 2 on 17-9-2009. Copy thereof is annexed herewith at Exhibit "A". Thereafter, the applicants came to be arrested under the said crime, and thereafter they were enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under R.T.C. No. 93/2010, which was before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon [District: Ahmednagar] for the above referred offences, and said case is pending before the said court.

It is the contention of the applicants, that during the pendency of R.T.C. No. 93/2010, both the parties realized that the quarrel between them arose due to sudden provocation and now they have settled the dispute amicably. The applicants and the complainant are residing in the same village since last more than ten years and they have roots in the society. The applicants and complainant submit that now the relations between the parties have became smooth and for the welfare of each other, they have decided not to proceed further against each other. Thus, it is contention of the applicant and respondent no. 2, that they have settled the dispute amongst themselves amicably out of the court, and the respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant does not wish to proceed with R.T.C. No. 93/2010 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon.

Pursuant to the settlement between the parties, they have filed joint compromise Pursish dated 9th May 2012 before this Court. The Compromise Pursish is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification purpose. It is stated in the Compromise Pursish that during the pendency of R.T.C. No. 93/ 2010, the applicants and respondent no. 2 have settled the dispute amicably and now there are no strained relations between them, and they are having cordial relations with each other. The applicants and respondent no. 2 also stated that they have settled the dispute amicably and they do not want to prosecute against each other and undertake that henceforth they would live peacefully since cordial relations have been developed between them. The applicants and respondent no. 2 also undertook that henceforth they will not create litigation against each other and shall reside in cooperation. Moreover, both the parties have withdrawn allegations against each other. Hence, it is stated that the proceedings before learned trial court bearing R.T.C. No. 93/2010 deserves to be quashed. They have further stated that they have filed Compromise Pursish on their own accord and without any influence upon each other since they have amicably settled the dispute and they would respect the Compromise Pursish.

I have perused the said Compromise Pursish which appears to have been signed by applicant nos. 1 to 5, and respondent no. 2, as well as, their respective Advocates, and they appear to have sworn affidavits below thereto. Applicant nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no. 2 are present today in the court, in person, and they admitted their respective signatures on the said joint Compromise Pursish, and also contents thereof. The respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant specifically stated that he does not wish to prosecute R.T.C. No. 93/2010 before learned trial court, and urged that the same be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.

T have perused the present Application, its annexures, joint Compromise Pursish, and heard submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the contents of the present Application, contents of the joint Compromise Pursish filed by the applicant nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no. 2, it is amply clear that the applicant nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no. 2 have resolved their dispute amicably out of the court. Moreover, it also appears that they belong to the same village residing near other and they also realize that the dispute arose between them on the trifle ground and due to sudden provocation, and now the dispute has been settled between them, and they are having cordial relations with each other, and they desire to continue the same and intend to reside in the village peacefully. It also appears that they have signed the Compromise Pursish of their own accord and they have admitted contents thereof and their signatures thereon. Moreover, the said Compromise Pursish also recites that the parties have withdrawn allegations against each other and they have undertaken that henceforth they shall not create any litigation against each other and they shall reside amicably in cooperation with each other. They have also undertaken to respect the said Compromise Pursish.

Thus, since the parties have settled the dispute amicably between themselves, there is no propriety in proceeding with the trial of aforesaid R.T.C. No. 93/2010. Moreover, it is also apparently clear that the respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant does not desire to prosecute said R.T.C. No. 93/2010, and hence, there is bleak possibility of rendering conviction in the said R.T.C., since parties have no grievance against each other. Hence, prosecuting trial on the basis of said FIR will be futile exercise.

In the circumstances, present Application deserves to be allowed and R.T.C. No. 93/2010 for the aforesaid offences deserves to be quashed and set aside invoking provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court, since offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC, which is alleged against the applicants, is not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to meet the ends of justice and to maintain harmony between the parties and also to prevent abuse of process of court.

In the result, present Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "A" and "B" thereof, and charge sheet bearing R.T.C. No. 93/2010, pending before Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon [District: Ahmednagar], for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 of Indian Penal Code, and u/s 4/25 of Arms Act, and also u/s 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act, stands quashed and set aside, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Office to inform the concerned court accordingly.