Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 2948 (BOM)

MEENA W/O CHARANSINGH TOMAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAH., THR. PSO PS SAKKARDARA, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER

APL/943/2019 · 2026-02-02

Urmila Joshi Phalke

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 13-J-APL-943-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 943 OF 2019 APPLICANTS : 1. Meena w/o Charansingh Tomar, Aged about : 50 years, Occu : Household, 2. Vedanti @ Khushi Vijaysingh Gautam, Aged about : 14 years, occu : Student (Minor) through Guardian – Applicant No.1. Both R/o C/o Krishnarao Zore, Plot No.3/2, Near Vima Hospital, Somwari Quarter, Budhwar Bazar, Nagpur. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, P. S. Sakkardara, Nagpur. 2. Wasudeo s/o Krishnarao Zore, Aged about : 60 years, Occu : Retired, R/o Plot No.23, Dhangavli Nagar, Somwari Quarter, Nagpur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. S. Siddiqui, Advocate for applicants. Shri N. B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Shri U. P. Dable, Advocate for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 02/02/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:1833-DB 2 13-J-APL-943-2019.doc 2. The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.3243/2018 registered under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Charge Sheet No.67/2019 and S.C.C. No.10491/2019. 3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that the litigation regarding tenancy is pending before the Court on 23/12/2018. The incident occurred wherein the present applicants have abused in filthy language. On the basis of said report, police have registered crime and therefore, application is filed for quashing of the FIR as well as criminal case. During the pendency of this application, the parties have settled the dispute amicably. The applicant No.1 appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing along with her counsel wherein non-applicant No.2 is present before the Court. They both have submitted that the alleged incident occurred due to the tenant and landlord dispute which is now settled. 4. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported 3 13-J-APL-943-2019.doc in 2012(10) SCC 303, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. 5. A similar ratio is laid down in the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. 6. In view of the above observations and considering the earlier incident occurred out of the landlord and tenant dispute, 4 13-J-APL-943-2019.doc now, they have amicably settled the dispute. In view of that, application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER i] The application is allowed. ii] The FIR in connection with Crime No.3243/2018 registered under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings bearing S.C.C. No.10491/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Juvenile/Case No.164/2019 registered against applicant No.2 is also quashed and set aside. 7. The application is disposed of. [JUDGE] Choulwar