Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Sanjay s/o. Divanji Gerange - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Inspector, MIDC Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Application No.300, 305 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2017
For the Applicant :Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar, Mr. Kakasaheb J. Tandale, Advocate, Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, Addl. P.P, Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P.
The seriousness of the alleged offences and their impact on the community outweighed the compromise between the parties, justifying the rejection of the applications.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code - Section 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472, 409, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, particularly sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472, 409, and 34, and emphasized the seriousness of the alleged offences, the impact on the community, and the need for thorough investigation and prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash criminal cases against them based on a compromise with the respondents. The respondents argued that the alleged offences involved widespread conspiracy and cheating of the public.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the applications, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences, the impact on the community, and the need for thorough investigation and prosecution.
Issues: Whether the compromise between the parties warranted quashing of the criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the alleged offences and their impact on the community outweighed the compromise between the parties, justifying the rejection of the applications.
Final Decision: The court rejected the Criminal Applications for quashing of the First Information Reports.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. The Criminal Application No.300/2017 is filed with the following prayer:
(B) This Criminal Application may kindly be allowed and the Crime bearing No. I292/ 2016 dated 30.11.2016 registered with the police station at M.I.D.C. Ahmednagar Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar offence punishable under section 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472, 409, Read With 34 of Indian Penal Code. may kindly be quashed in view of Compromise taken place between the applicant and Respondents.
2. Another Criminal Application No.305/2017 is filed with the following prayer:
(B) This Criminal Application may kindly be allowed and the Crime bearing No. I284/ 2016 dated 20.11.2016 registered with the police station at M.I.D.C. Ahmednagar Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar offence punishable under section 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472, Read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. may kindly be quashed in view of Compromise taken place between the applicant and Respondents.
3. The compromise pursis duly signed and verified by the applicants who are original informants and private respondents are placed on record. On the basis of the terms mentioned in the said compromise pursis, learned counsel appearing for the applicants i.e. original informants, submits that the parties have decided to settle the dispute without paying or accepting any compensation. Therefore, the First Information Reports may be quashed and set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants in support of his contention that, when the parties have settled the dispute through compromise, and the informants do not wish to proceed with the First Information Reports, the First Information Reports deserve to be quashed, pressed into service exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana and others v. State of Haryana and another, [2008] 15 SCC 704, and also in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Sunil Kashinath Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2011 All.M.R. (Cri.) 2833.
5. During the course of hearing, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State informed this Court that the commission of alleged offences is not restricted against the informants, but there are number of other persons, who have been cheated by the applicants by selling the old vehicles posing that those vehicles are new. He further submits that number of documents, which are forged, fake and manufactured are delivery challans, tax invoices, insurance papers and also giving forged duplicate R.C., numbers to the vehicle etc. He submits that there appears to be wide spread conspiracy for pecuniary gain by the applicants cheating public at large by preparing forged documents. Therefore, it is necessary to take investigation to the logical end and prosecute the wrong doer in the public interest. He also invites our attention to the allegations in the First Information Reports and the investigation papers and submits that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may not quash the First Information Reports on the basis of alleged compromise between the applicants and private respondents.
He further submits that quashing of First Information Reports on the basis of alleged compromise would send wrong signal to the society and might encourage alleged activities of cheating, fraud, misrepresentation and preparation of forged documents causing irreparable injury to the interest of members of the society.
6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. With their able assistance, perused the allegations in the First Information Reports and also other documents placed on record, investigation papers and verified terms of settlement duly signed by the applicants and private respondents. Though it
