Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar, JJ.
Anurag Dhanraj Meshram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application (Appeal) No. 855 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Sec. 498A - Quashing of FIR - The court quashed the FIR registered for offence punishable under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the personal nature of the allegations and the amicable compromise between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants challenged the registration of FIR against them for offence punishable under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging mental torture of the non-applicant No.2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the offence against the applicants was personal in nature and noted the amicable compromise between the parties, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the registration of the FIR and the allegations of mental torture against the non-applicant No.2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, where it was advised to quash proceedings in cases of personal nature to utilize time for more deserving cases.
Final Decision: The criminal application was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the applicants, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
JUDGMENT
AMIT B.BORKAR,J. - Heard learned counsel Shri U.Y.Sonkusare for applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.S.Doifode for the State. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for parties.
2. By this application, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants challenge registration of First Information Report No.144/2021 registered with Gondia City Police Station, Gondia for offence punishable under Sec. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered against applicants with allegations that applicants mentally tortured non-applicant No.2 and, therefore, applicants are challenging the First Information Report.
4. Applicants and non-applicant No.2 have mutually resolved their dispute. Parties have tendered Compromise Deed dtd. 28/3/2022 which is signed by applicants and non-applicant No.2. The said Compromise Deed is taken on record and the same is marked as Exhibit-X for purposes of identification.
5. Having carefully considered allegations in First Information Report, we are satisfied that nature of offence against applicants is personal in nature. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot .vs. State of Punjab, reported at (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that when allegations are personal in nature, it is advisable to quash proceedings so that time in such cases can be utilized for more deserving cases.
6. In view of offence against applicants is personal in nature and in view of amicable compromise arrived at between parties, there is no impediment for quashing of the First Information Report. We, therefore, pass following order:
ORDER
The criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) of the application.
Rule is made absolute in above stated terms.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
