MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (for short, "APP") for the State. This is an application for quashing of proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 3933 of 2012 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (A.C.), Pune, arising out of Crime No. 168 of 2011 of Deccan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC").

(2.) The investigation had commenced on the report of respondent No. 2. In fact the applicant and respondent No. 2 seem to have had some civil dispute also which was resolved by an order of the Civil Court dated 1-2-2013. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2 has no objection to the proceedings being quashed. The learned APP, however, vehemently objects to the proceedings being quashed. He submitted that respondent No. 2 had misused the police machinery, possibly to settle respondent No. 2's civil dispute with the applicant. He submitted that this dispute had a criminal flavour, in as much as there was an allegation of forgery and, therefore, he strongly objects to quashing of the proceedings,

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 10 SCC 303. He submitted that the Supreme Court had noted in para 48 of the Judgment observations of a Five Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dealt with the question of power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in matters pertaining to non-compoundable offences in which parties had reached a settlement. It would be useful to reproduce the said observations, which read as under: