1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.1199 of 2009 Deoram Sakharam Lande & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. Surekha Nitin Jathar & Anr. ..Respondents with Criminal Writ Petition No.1200 of 2009 . Sou. Surekha Nitin Jathar & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. Devram Sakharam Lande & Ors. ..Respondents with Criminal Writ Petition No.1201 of 2009 Shankar Sakharam Lande & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Chima Punjaji Lande & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Petitioner in W.P.1199/2009 and 1201 of 2009 Mr.Vilas Tapkir for the Petitioner in Writ Petition 1200 of 2009 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State 2 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 13th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Tapkir and Mr.Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The relief prayed for and cumulatively in these petitions is for quashing C.R.Nos.77 of 2007, C.R.No.78 of 2008 and C.R.No.71 of 2006 , all registered with Junnar Police Station in Pune District and therefore the petitions are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Elections for Kewadi Village Panchayat were held on 1.10.2006 and there were two panels, one was called as Vetalbaba Panel, led by Shri Devram Sakharam Lande and the second one was called as Shreeram Panel led by Shri Chiman Lande. On account of the election rivalry, there was some incident that had taken place on 2.10.2006 and therefore Shri Chima Punaji Lande filed a complaint on the basis of which C.R.No.71/2006 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 342, 365, 504 and 506 of IPC, against the group led by Shri Devram Sakharam Lande (petitioners in criminal Writ Petition No.1201 of 2008). On 10.10.2007 there was festival of bullocks at Village Kewadi and out of 3 the procession taken out on that day there was another incident which resulted one more FIR being filed with the Junnar Police Station on the complaint filed by Shri Devram Lande. Consequently, the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.1200 of 2007 came to be arrested on registration of C.R.No.78 of 2007. A counter complaint was also filed by the group led by Surekha Jadar and therefore C.R.No.77 of 2007 came to be registered on 10.10.2007 against the petitioners in criminal Writ Petition No.1199 of 2008, and they were arrested. All the arrested persons have been subsequently released on bail. 3. Each of the complainants have filed separate affidavits in support of the respective petitions and jointly urging before this Court to quash and set aside the above stated 3 C.R’s, as the parties have compromised and as per the special drive /scheme announced by the State Government to have dispute free villages, these complaints are required to be quashed and set aside. It is necessary to mention that C.R.No.77 and 78 of 2007 have been registered for the offences punishable under Section 347, 324, 143, 147, 148 r/w. 149 of IPC and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is admitted that the complaint filed for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and 365 IPC is not 4 compoundable and such complaints also do not fall within the the realm of special scheme of the State Government. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the complaints. 4. Shri Suryakant Gyandeo Pawar, Assistant Police Inspector, presently attached to Junnar Police Station, in District Pune has filed an affidavit in reply opposing the petitions. Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned APP has also pointed out that on completion of investigation, in the respective complaints chargsheets have been filed. C.R. No.71 of 2006 has resulted into filing of the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class at Junnar in Criminal Case NO.422 of 2008. Similarly, in C.R.No.77 and 78 of 2007 chargesheets have been filed and separate Sessions cases have been registered and are pending before the Sessions Court at Pune i.e. Sessions Case No.503 of 2008 and Sessions Case No.92 of 2008 respectively. From the very same incident that had taken place on 10.10.2007 and giving rise to C.R.No.77 and 78 of 2007, Shri Uddhav Maruti Gaikwad, the police constable also filed a separate complaint and on the basis of which C.R.No. 79 of 2007 has been registered. On investigations, chargesheet has been filed in Criminal Case No.48 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5 Ist Class, at Junnar for the offences punishable under Section 353, 324, 143, 147, 148 r/w. 149 of IPC and Section 133 of the Bombay Police Act. 5. Mr.Tapkir and Mr.Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court : i) B.S.Joshi & Ors. vs.State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii) Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and iii)Nikhil Merchant vs.Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677. Mr.Tapkir, more particularly has invited out attention to the following observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 6. Mrs.Deshmukh, the learned APP, while opposing the petitions has also pointed out that even if the petitioners are present before the Court, affidavits have been filed in support of the prayers made in the petitions, 6 and they have reiterated their resolve to close these rival cases, the fact remains that the criminal case arising from the complaint of the police constable from the very same incident, would continue and at the same time the offences punishable under Section 365 and 307 of IPC are not compoundable. As per Mrs. Deshmukh, the observations made by the Apex Court in Madan Abbots case are not applicable in the peculiar facts of these cases in as much as even if these petitions are allowed, the disputes between the parties cannot be closed in as much as the case filed on the basis of the complaint of the police constable would continue for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class and it arises from the same incident as is in C.R.No.77 and 78 of 2007. We find force in these arguments. We are therefore, not inclined to grant relief as prayed for and more particularly because the observations made by the Apex Court in Madan Abbot’s case do not apply with full force in the peculiar facts of these cases. At the best, the petitioners have a remedy to make an application before the Sessions Court at Pune for transfer of case presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, at Junnar to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class at Pune, or to apply for discharge if so permissible. 7. For the reasons set out herein above, these petitions must fail at the 7 threshold and the same are hereby rejected. However, the trial in Sessions Case No.92 of 2008 and 503 of 2008 is hereby expedited. In case these two cases are before different Additional Session Courts, we direct the Principal Sessions Judge to club both the cases so that they are tried by the very same court. In addition, if the petitioners make an application for tansfer of criminal Case No.48 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, within a period of 4 weeks from today, we direct that the said application be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 8 weeks of its presentation, provided the trial in the said case has not yet commenced. 8. The trial in Criminal Case No.422 of 2008 is also expedited. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]