Back
YOGESH PRABHUDAS RAJPUT AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
APL 617/2021
(20) cri.apl-617.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.617 OF 2021
1]
Yogesh Prabhudas Rajput
]
Age about 46 years, occ :- Service
]
R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla
]
Appartment 04 Flower
]
Room No.405, Virar East,
]
Tal – Vasai, Dist – Palghar
]
]
2]
Daksh Yogesh Rajput,
]
Age about 18 years, occ – Student
]
R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla
]
Appartment 04 Flower
]
Room No.405, Virar East,
]
Tal – Vasai, Dist – Palghar
]
]
3]
Geeta Yogesh Rajput
]
Occupation – Housewife
]
Age about 42 years,
]
R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla
]
Appartment 04 Flower
]
Room No.405, Virar East,
]….. Applicants.
Tal – Vasai, Dist – Palghar
](Org. Accused)
versus
1]
The State of Maharashtra
]
Through
]
Senior Police Inspector,
]
Virar Police Station,
]
Dist. Palghar
]
In F.I.R. No.0607/2020
]
dtd. 26-06-2020
]
(Notice to be served on the A.P.P.
]
High Court, Mumbai)
]
]
2]
Vinay Kumar Jha
]
Age about 38 years,
]
Occupation : Service
]
R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla
]
lgc
1 of 6
LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
CHANDAN
Digitally signed by
LAXMIKANT
GOPAL CHANDAN
Date: 2021.09.02
10:38:43 +0530
(20) cri.apl-617.21.odt
Appartment 04 Flower
]….. Respondents.
Room No.402, Virar East,
] Respondent No.2
Tal – Vasai, Dist – Palghar
] is Org. Complainant
Mr. B A Lawate a/w Mr. S D Inamdar-Shinde for the Applicants.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
Respondent No.2 present.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE : 01st September 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)
1
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2
This Criminal Application is filed for the following substantial
relief :-
“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
F.I.R. No.0609/2020, dtd. 26-06-2020 recorded at the
instance of Virar Police Station for the offences u/sec.
323, 504, 506, 427, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3
The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is submitted that the Applicant
and the 2nd Respondent are residing in the same building, and with the
intervention of the persons residing in the said building, the Applicant and the
2nd Respondent have decided to resolve and settle the dispute amicably.
lgc
2 of 6
(20) cri.apl-617.21.odt
4
The 2nd Respondent has filed his affidavit in support of the said
amicable settlement. In paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Affidavit, the 2nd Respondent
stated thus :-
“2 I say that on 26-06-2020 there was a minor quarrel
between me and the Applicants and it took place in a
spur of moment. I say that due to the misunderstanding
an FIR has been recorded.
3 I say that myself and the Applicants/Accused wants to
put an end to the litigation and wants to resolve the
present matter amicably.
4 I say that considering the above said all facts and
circumstances, myself have no objection to compound
and quash and set aside an F.I.R. No.0609/2020, dtd. 26-
06-2020 was recorded at the instance of Virar Police
Station for the offences U/sec. 323, 504, 506, 427, 143,
147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
5 There is no force, coercion and undue influence on the
part of the Respondent No.2 while executing the said
affidavit dtd. 05.08.2021. The Respondent No.2 is fully
aware of the legal consequences of executing and filing
the present affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.”
5
The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court. The 2nd
Respondent is identified by the learned counsel Mr. B. A. Lawate. We have
interacted with the 2nd Respondent. He stated that it is his voluntary act to
enter into the settlement and to give consent for quashing the impugned FIR.
He further stated that the FIR was registered out of misunderstanding.
6
Since the 2nd Respondent has decided to amicably settle and
resolve the dispute and not to proceed with the impugned FIR, no fruitful
lgc
3 of 6
(20) cri.apl-617.21.odt
purpose would b
