Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 751 (BOM)

Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Goa

2013-04-02

R.P.SONDURBALDOTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 2. Heard Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no. 1 and Shri P. Arolkar learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. Respondent No.2 is present in person. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of Criminal Case no. 127/S/12/B pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 504 Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner is the accused and respondent no.2 is the original complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2 submit that during the pendency of the proceedings these parties have settled their dispute by mutual understanding and respondent no.2-complainant does not desire that the petitioner should be prosecuted. Mr. G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the offence punishable under Section 324 is not compoundable, the petitioner is required to file the present petition for quashing the proceedings. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 : [2013 ALL SCR 171] the Counsel submit that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending in view of the settlement between the parties. They point out that the incident of assault took place as an outcome of a personal dispute between the parties. The dispute does not in any way touch the public policy. Therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 5. I have perused the complaint. The facts of the complaint indicate that there was a personal dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and the criminal proceedings are purely out of that personal dispute. The allegations of the prosecution do not involve any aspect of public policy. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'AA'. Petition allowed.