SALIL BANDODKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri V. Amonkar, leared Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.3.

(2.) The petitioners are taking exception to the FIR no.155/2016 dated 30.10.2016 registered with the respondent no.2 based on the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 141, 143, 147 read with Sec. 149 IPC. It was their case that while the respondent no.3 was at the PDA Colony alongwith his friends, there was a scuffle between the petitioners on the one side and the respondent no.3 with his friends on the other resulting in the complaint on 30.10.2016 giving rise to the registration of the offence vide the FIR No.155/2016. The petitioner no.2 had also filed a complaint against the respondent no.3 and the other persons involved in the said scuffle and an FIR was registered bearing No.154/2016. However, there was a composite understanding and overall amicable resolution of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no.3 and others and they had filed a separate petition before this Court invoking the powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the FIR No.154/2016.

(3.) It was the petitioners' case further that the complaint filed by the respondent no.3 was lodged purely out of misunderstanding and misapprehension. The petitioners were persons of young age and mostly students who had no other criminal case pending against them and had no other criminal record. They had decided to settle the disputes between themselves and had approached the respondent no.3 who after understanding the correct factual position and keeping the greater good of the petitioners as well as the respondent no.3 and other persons in mind, agreed to settle the disputes and filed the present petition. However, as some of the offences alleged are not compoundable in nature, the petitioners were constrained to move this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 CrPC. The present criminal case was harming the reputation of the petitioners in the locality and was also affecting their academic career as well as family life. Moreover, they had a bright future and the pendency of the criminal proceedings was an obstacle for them and therefore, they had agreed to settle the disputes between themselves and improve their future relationship.