Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1643 (BOM)

Vishwajeet Rane v. State of Goa

2017-08-10

C.V.BHADANG, PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, waives service in person. Heard finally by consent of parties. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C., for short), the petitioner is seeking quashing of the Chargesheet No. 38/2009, based on FIR No. 130/2007 and the consequent proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji bearing Criminal Case No. IPC/117/2009/C. 2. The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, an offence under Section 506 part II of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioner at P.S. Old Goa and after investigation, a chargesheet is filed. The petitioner is presently facing trial for the said offence before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Panaji. As per the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, it was alleged that while the respondent No. 2 was in his office on 31.07.2007 at about 8:15 a.m., he received a call on his mobile. The caller identified himself as Mr. Vishwajeet Rane, i.e. the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has stated that he is familiar with the voice of the petitioner and identified him as Mr. Vishwajeet Rane. He further claimed that the petitioner threatened respondent No. 2 with life and then hung up. Undisputedly, a formal charge has not yet been framed by the learned Magistrate. 3. The respondent No. 2 has now filed an affidavit dated 09.05.2017 (pages 78 to 80 of the compilation) stating that, since after the date of the incident, respondent No. 2 has cordial relations with the petitioner and he has decided to forgo the incident of 31.07.2007 and "move on in life without any bitterness". The respondent No. 2 has stated that he is not desirous of pursuing with the complaint. In other words, the respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of the criminal case. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 in person. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the alleged offence does not have any public law element involved. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 in person. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the alleged offence does not have any public law element involved. The dispute is purely between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, in as much as, the respondent No. 2 has alleged that he was threatened during a telephonic call. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of remorse, the petitioner is willing to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- with the State Legal Aid Fund, which indeed, he has deposited today vide Receipt No. 3543 dated 10.08.2017. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the circumstances and the submissions made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 : [2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 548], has inter-alia held that, except the offences, which are of grave nature, such as rape, murder and offences involving moral turpitude can be allowed to be quashed, in view of amicable settlement between the parties. It is further held that prosecution involving such offences, which are personal to the parties, not involving public law element can be put to an end to, as continuation of prosecution in such cases would be lame and an exercise in futility. The consideration of restoration of peace and better relation between the parties also arise in such cases. The Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : [2013 ALL SCR 171]. Thus in our considered view, a case for quashing of the chargesheet is made out. In such circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).