SM 1 909.apl.684.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 684 OF 2011 Ganesh Balasaheb Satav ....Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. K. S. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D. A. Nalawade for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: By way of present application, the applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal case bearing S. C. No.800/2010 and the FIR bearing No. 190/2010 registered with Lonikand Police Station, District-Pune. 2. The FIR is registered at the instance of the respondent no. 2. It is alleged in the FIR that the daughter of the petitioner no. 2, namely Puja was having a love affair with respondent no. 3- Sandeep. It is stated that at the instance of the mother of Puja, namely Jayashree, the complainant had told Sandeep not to meet the said girl. It is further stated that in February, 2010, Sandeep had gone out of his home. It is further stated that the complainant had come to know that Puja also had gone out of her home. Accordingly, missing complaints were registered in the police station. During the search, they were found by the petitioner no. 2 in Goa and they were brought back to home. It was also revealed that both had married to each other at Alandi. It is further stated SM 2 909.apl.684.11 that the elders in the family had a meeting and had informed both Sandeep and Puja not to keep any relation with each other. Accordingly, Sandeep was kept at complainants elder sister's home at Chandan Nagar, Pune. It is further stated that Sandeep used to inform the complainant that whenever he used to come to the village, the petitioner no. 2 used to look at him angrily. 3. The FIR further states that on 29th October, 2010 at about 3.30 p.m., the complainant received a call from his nephew Sandeep. It further states that from his voice it could be gathered that when he was under great pain and was crying. It further states that Sandeep told him that he was going from Wagholi to Perane on motorcycle, the Wagan-R car which was following the motorcycle dashed him. It further states that after he fell down, the petitioner no. 2 came down from the vehicle and shot him with revolver on his chest and stomach. The complainant further states that he, immediately, informed his another nephew Dinesh to go to the spot. While the complainant was coming to the spot, Dinesh informed him that Sandeep was first taken to Rakshak Hospital and then taken to Ruby Hospital. On the basis of this allegation, the FIR was registered. 4. Th FIR is sought to be quashed on the ground that now the matter has been settled between the complainant and the applicants. It is further stated that Sandeep and Puja, have remarried and are staying together. In these circumstances, the FIR is sought to be quashed. 5. Shri. Nalawade, the learned counsel for the respondent SM 3 909.apl.684.11 nos. 2 and 3 also reiterates the same. He submits that on the last two occasions, the complainant and the injured person were, personally, present in the Court and have supported the motion made by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. An affidavit to that effect is also filed on record. 6. Both the counsel press on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, in support of their contentions. 7. No doubt that the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, has held that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However the same would be applicable if the crime is against an individual and not a society at large. 8. Dashing a person riding on a motorcycle on a busy road with four wheeler in a broad daylight and then firing him with bullets with revolver cannot be said to be a case which is purely of a personal nature. Such an assault would be clearly against the society at large and cannot be permitted to be settled by the intervention of this Court by invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. No case is made out to warrant interference. Rejected. 10. Needless to state that the observations made herein SM 4 909.apl.684.11 would not be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court at the state of the trial and the learned Trail Court would decide the case on its own merits by taking into consideration the evidence which would be placed on record. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)