cran1898.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1898 OF 2010 Mahesh Shamlal patel, Age 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar ...Applicant Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra through in charge police station Shridi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar 2 The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 3 Shree Sandeep Sonaji Jagtap, Age 24 years, Occ. Labour work, R/o. Dattanagar, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for the applicant Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Jeevan J. Patil, advocate for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 4TH MAY, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard. cran1898.11 -2- 2 Notice. Learned APP accepts notice of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Advocate Mr. Jeevan Patil accepts notice of respondent No.3. He has already filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.3. 3 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 4 By the present criminal application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant has approached this Court to quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing No. I-48 of 2011 registered with Shirdi police station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the offences registered under Sections 325, 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”). 5 Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions advanced by learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6 Perusal of record shows that on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.3 with Shirdi police station an offence bearing C.R. No. I-48 of 2011 came to be registered. It is alleged in the said cran1898.11 -3- complaint that the respondent No.3 is working in the shop run by the present applicant under the name and style as Patel Hardware. The applicant is dealing with the business of sale of spartech tiles so also other related materials. It is alleged that respondent No.3 complainant and two others servants were in the shop run by the present applicant. It is further alleged that at about 9.30 a.m. or so one customer came in the shop, who intend to purchase some tiles. The applicant herein instructed respondent No.3 to go to godown and to show tiles in the godown to the said customer. It appears that respondent No.3 informed the said customer that no such tiles are in the godown. When this fact came to the knowledge of the applicant, as the owner of the shop, he was aware of the stock in existence in the said godown, he took the customer to the godown and shown the tiles to him in the godown. On this count, some dispute took place between respondent No.3 and the applicant. It is alleged that there was abuse by the applicant to the third respondent on his caste and he gave a slap on the face of respondent No.3. On that basis the respondent No.3 lodged complaint with Shirdi police station and on the basis of the said complaint the offence in question i.e. C.R. No. I-48 of 2011 came to be registered with Shirdi police station. 7 It appears that the following to the registration of the offence, the applicant had applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions cran1898.11 -4- Judge, Ahmednagar wherein his application for pre-arrest bail was turned down. It further appears that thereafter criminal application bearing No. 1784 of 2011 was moved before this Court in which directions were given that no coercive action/step be taken against the accused/applicant and the said protection is granted till today. 8 Now the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court as according to respondent No.3-complainant, due to some misunderstanding he has lodged the complaint with Shirdi police station against the applicant. Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit to that effect. Today the applicant so also the respondent No.3-original complainant are present before the court. The applicant is identified by advocate Shri V.D. Sapkal while respondent No.3 is identified by advocate Shri Jeevan Patil. On questioning to the parties present before the court and identified by the respective counsel, they admit that without any pressure the respondent No.3 has filed affidavit before this court so as to settle the matter amicably. 9 In these premises it is urged before this court on behalf of the applicant that even though the offence registered under the provisions of Atrocities Act,which is not compoundable offence, a view is taken by this court in the matter of Dhananjay Gopalrao Bahergaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2010 ALL Mr (Cri) 3114) wherein it cran1898.11 -5- is observed by this Court relying on the observation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386= 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) so also the observation in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47 = 2007 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 191) wherein it is observed that general proposition limiting powers of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, for the purpose of securing ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether such power to be exercised or not. 10 In my judgment in the matter of Dhananjay Bahergaonkar (supra) while quashing the F.I.R. registered for the offences under the Atrocities Act, I have observed that in the hit of anger the offence came to be registered by the complainant. The accused wanted to maintain harmony between the parties so also amongst the members of the society so they desired to settle the issue amicably as the complainant lodged the report due to misunderstanding such opportunity to be given to them and these are fit circumstances where this court can exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this cran1898.11 -6- court. 11 Further it is useful to give reference to the observations of this Court in criminal writ petition No. 316 of 2010 in the matter of Pravinkumar Bansilal Nehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein it is observed by this Court relying on the observations in the matter of Mansur A. Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported din 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 1911 wherein requirements of law is to see whether mutual settlement is bonafide and free from pressure and force. 12 The parties are present before this Court, identified by the respective counsel. On questioning them they stated before the court that the complaint is lodged due to misunderstanding and now they are settling the issue without any pressure or influence from anybody. In view of these circumstances and as they wanted to keep the peace and harmony in the society and in view of the fact that the parties have already settled the dispute outside the court, this is a fit case where the court can exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13 In the result, application succeeds. F.I.R. bearing No. I-48 of 2011 registered with Shirdi police station is hereby quashed and set cran1898.11 -7- aside. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”. Rule thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. Application disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. *****