SUNIL KASHINATH SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. RULE made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The instant application is filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of Cri. M.A. No. 79 of 2010 filed against the applicants by respondent No.2 directly in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Ashti on 8.3.2010 for the offences punishable under section 420, 466, 467, 474, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It is also prayed that applicants may be acquitted from the prosecution. It is further prayed by the applicants that the effect, implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned J.M.F.C. Ashti U/sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in Cri. M.A. No. 79 of 2010 be stayed as also the investigation in Cri. M.A. No. 79 of 2010 and the consequent F.I.R. may be stayed and the trial on the basis of Cri. M.A. No. 79 of 2010 may be stayed.

(3.) In view of the said compromise terms, on 30.4.2010 another pursis was filed before the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti who seized with Cri. M.A. No. 79 of 2010 contending that as now the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, they may be allowed to compromise/compound the pending criminal case on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Ashti. By his order dated 30.4.2010, the learned Magistrate rejected the said pursis on the ground that as he has directed investigation of offence under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. he cannot accept the compromise pursis and liberty was given to the complainant and accused to approach the INvestigating officer i.e. concerned Police station Officer, Ashti. IN law, once the criminal law is set in motion and the complaint is recorded in the police station, the concerned police station officer cannot settle the matter. It is thus against the rejection of compromise pursis by the learned J.M.F.C. the applicants have approached this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.