BHARATKUMAR S.GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent. This Application was argued yesterday. To enable the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant to make further submissions, the Application was kept back till the afternoon session yesterday. On the request made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we again granted time till today. We have heard further submissions.

(2.) The prayer in this Application is for quashing the criminal case on the basis of the First Information Report registered at the instance of the second Respondent for the offence punishable under section 377 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the police for various offences including the offence punishable under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also not in dispute that the present Applicant filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3858 of 2013 in this Court for quashing the proceedings of the impugned First Information Report and on 17 December 2013, the Petition was withdrawn with liberty to raise all contentions before the Competent Court at appropriate stage.

(3.) This is an Application filed invoking powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). From the averments made in the Application and from the submissions made across the bar, the contention of the Applicant is that now there is a settlement between the Applicant and the first informant which is reflected from the Affidavit dated 14 June 2016 filed by the second Respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vijay Gupta and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others Criminal Writ Petition No.516 of 2014 decided on 13 May 2014 . Today, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant tenders across the bar a draft amendment by which he seeks to incorporate a prayer for declaring section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The draft amendment is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.