Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2609 (BOM)

Naman s/o. Suresh Jain v. State of Maharashtra

2013-12-17

A.B.CHAUDHARI, Z.A.HAQ

body2013
JUDGMENT A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. T.A. Mirza waives service on behalf of respondent no.1. None for respondent nos. 2 and 3 though they are served. 2. The informant-complainant has filed the present application with following prayers: “[i] allow the Applicant to withdraw the complaint dated 28.01.2012 and First Information Report dated 04.04.2012 vide Crime No. 61/2012 [Annexure Nos.1 & 2] and consequently quash the prosecution of respondent nos. 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 468, 471, 34 of I.P.C. registered by P.S. Ganeshpeth, Nagpur and they may be set at liberty in the interest of justice; [ii] in view of quashing of the prosecution of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide Crime No. 61/2012 registered by Police Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, common order dated 01.06.2012 [Annexure-3] may be quashed and set aside in order to facilitate the Applicant to hand over the custody of vehicle to Suri Motors, Vashi, New Mumbai in view of the understanding and settlement arrived at between Applicant and Suri Motors, in the interest of justice." 3. Learned Adv. Mr. Patwardhan for the applicant invited our attention to Clause [iii] of operative part of the impugned order dated 1st June, 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Nagpur, which we reproduce as under:- "[iii] The applicant shall not sale, transfer or otherwise create any charge on said property in any manner till conclusion of trial in Crime No. 61/12." 4. Learned Adv. Mr. Patwardhan for the applicant submits that the applicant wants to withdraw his complaint of cheating etc., since the trial in Crime No. 61/2012 would take undue long time in view of the fact that even the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. According to him, the applicant would be put to serious prejudice if the vehicle, in question, is not allowed to be sold or transferred looking to the life of the vehicle, so also the depreciating value thereof. He then submitted that since the applicant wants to withdraw the First Information Report, none stands prejudiced and in that context, therefore, the applicant should be allowed to withdraw his complaint. But that can be done only by quashing of the First Information Report as well as the trial in Crime No.61/2012. 5. We have heard Mr. He then submitted that since the applicant wants to withdraw the First Information Report, none stands prejudiced and in that context, therefore, the applicant should be allowed to withdraw his complaint. But that can be done only by quashing of the First Information Report as well as the trial in Crime No.61/2012. 5. We have heard Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the State, who submits that the State has no stake, except for the commission of the offence under Indian Penal Code. 6. We have carefully heard and considered the submissions made by Mr. Patwardhan and learned APP Mr. Mirza. We have kept in mind the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another [ 2012 (10) SCC 303 ] : (2013 ALL SCR 171) before endeavouring to exercise inherent power under Section 482, Criminal procedure Code. In the peculiar facts of the case, as stated above, we are of the opinion that the inherent power under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, is required to be exercised, in order that the applicant, who is the original complainant and the aggrieved person, wants to withdraw the First Information Report in order to get out of the lis. That being so and in the light of the fact that the applicant would lose everything if the First Information Report is not quashed, we make the following order: ORDER The Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses [i] and [ii]. 7. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.