Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Yogesh @ Yogi Chandralal Bajaj - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 615 of 2018, 78 of 2019
Decided On : 13-06-2019
Prakash S Paranjape, Adv., D.R. Kale, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections323,325,326, 307, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 482 - Arms Act – Section 4 and 25 – Attempt to murder – Use of dangerous weapon - First informant filed report that he accompanied with his wife were proceeding towards bridge from a School - He had seen petitioner sitting near the school - Petitioner started hurling abuses to complainant - There was bitter exchange of words in between them - In the argument, petitioner attacked complainant on the right hand wrist by iron rod and caused fracture injuries - Petitioner called other petitioners by making phone call - Other petitioners thronged at spot and assaulted complainant and his brothers, who arrived, later on to intervene in the scuffle - Petitioner dealt a blow of sword on the head of brother of complainant - He dodged the blow, there were bleeding injuries to his ear-lobe - Petitioner assaulted another brother of complainant with weapon – Knife - Petitioner attacked on complainant and his brothers with broken glass bottle of beer - On-lookers and others intervened in the scuffle - Complainant and brothers received serious injuries - They were escorted to hospital for medical treatment - On the following day, after receipt of information, police recorded statements of injured and registered crime against petitioners under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and set penal law in motion - Whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc – Held, In view of conduct and demeanour of petitioners and nature of crime committed by them, it categorically reveals that aforesaid offences committed by petitioners are not offences private in nature, but it has a serious impact on the society - It cannot be said that because of settlement, there are least chances of conviction into matter - Court are not inclined to accept compromise arrived at between petitioners and complainant to quash criminal proceeding - Gravity of offences and conduct of accused/petitioners do not persuade ourselves to quash proceeding in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C - As referred above, offences under Sections 307 and 326 are non-compoundable offences - While committing offences, petitioners/accused used lethal weapons like sword/knife, iron rod etc. Pending investigation, petitioners any how managed to enter into compromise with complainant but it would not sub-serve the purpose - In case compromise is accepted, it may result in cynical disregard of law, which would have serious impact on society at large and people may lose faith on the justice delivery system - In such circumstances, very purpose and object of legislation about deterrent punishment would be frustrated - Hence, court are not prepared to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of petitioners, even though they have resolved dispute amicably in between them - In the result, the petitions deserve to be dismissed - Petitions stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K.K. Sonawane, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The point in controversy in both these petitions are centered on the issue of quashing the Criminal Proceeding in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of compromise arrived at between the accused and complainant. Therefore, these two allied petitions are decided on merit by this common judgment.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2018.
3. The petitioners preferred the present petition to quash the criminal proceeding Crime No. 273 of 2017 registered against them under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act at Dhule City P.S. On 1.12.2017.
Facts leading to present petition are that :-
4. The First informant - Kanhaiyalal Peshuram Arora, filed report that on 30.11.2017 in the night hours at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., he accompanied with his wife Rinka were proceeding towards the bridge from School No. 58 located in Samata Nagar. He had seen the petitioner - Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj sitting near the school. The petitioner - Yogesh started hurling abuses to the complainant. There was bitter exchange of words in between them. In the argument, the petitioner Yogi Bajaj attacked the complainant Kanhaiyalal on the right hand wrist by iron rod and caused fracture injuries. The petitioner - Yogesh called other petitioners - Honu Sundarlal Bajaj, Banti Honu Bajaj, Deepak Sablani and Dhabu Chandralal Bajaj, by making phone call. The other petitioners thronged at the spot and assaulted the complainant Kanhaiyalal and his brothers Shashi and Santosh, who arrived, later on to intervene in the scuffle. The petitioner Dhabu Babaj, dealt a blow of sword on the head of Shashi - brother of complainant. He dodged the blow, however, there were bleeding injuries to his ear-lobe. The petitioner Deepak Sabnani assaulted another brother of the complainant - Santosh with weapon - Knife. The petitioner Banti attacked on the complainant and his brothers with broken glass bottle of beer. The on-lookers Sandip Arora, Sunil Giridharilal Sulaha and others intervened in the scuffle. The complainant and the brothers received serious injuries. They were escorted to the Siddheshwar hospital for medical treatment. On the following day, after receipt of information, the police recorded statements of the injured Kanhaiyalal and registered the crime against the petitioners under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and set the penal law in motion.
5. I.O. visited to the spot and drawn the panchanama of scheme of occurrence. He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. I.O. collected medical certificate and also seized blood stained clothes of the injured. I.O. recovered the weapon of crime at the behest of the petitioners Yogesh @ Yogi Chandralal Bajaj, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner Hitesh @ Dhabu also produced the weapon of crime - sword under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He seized the Muddemal and sent the sample for Chemical analysis. The investigation is in progress.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 78 of 2019
6. This petition is moved by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them bearing Crime No. 279 of 2017, registered under Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, on 5/12/2017 at Dhule City P.S. The petitioners, are seeking relief of quashing, on the ground that the dispute has been settled amicably between the petitioners - accused and the complainant.
Facts giving rise to the present petition are :-
7. The complainant Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj on 5.12.2017 approached to the police of Dhule City P.S. and ventilated the grievances that on 31.11.2017, he was proceeding towards Kumar Nagar to see his friend Ajay Durge. When he was passing from Samta Nagar area, that time, he saw that responden
