MOHSIN SK SAMAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate for applicant Nos. 1 to 8, Shri V.S. Oberoi, learned counsel for applicant Nos. 9 & 10 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, APP for the non-applicant.

(2.) By this application, the applicants as well as the complainant are seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) registered against applicant Nos. 1 to 8. Upon a complaint filed by applicant No. 9 in respect of the alleged beating and issuing threats of dire consequences on the victim of crime, who is applicant No. 10, the FIR has been registered at Police Station, Patur, District - Akola, vide Crime No. 344 of 2018, for such offences as are punishable under Sections 365, 307 and 386 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sec. 3, 25 of the Arms Act.

(3.) In the complaint that was filed against applicant Nos. 1 to 8, it was alleged that these applicants had kidnapped for ransom the applicant No. 10 and also subjected him to beating as well as issued threats of dire consequences. Later on, applicant No. 10, victim of crime was released by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 by dropping him near Railway Station. It has been alleged that this was done only after applicant No. 10 managed to pay part of ransom to the extent of Rs.3,50,000.00 to applicant Nos. 1 to 8 with the help of his son. The statement of applicant No. 10 was also recorded on the same day of incident, which was of 04.10.2018. Of course, that was after applicant No. 10 was allegedly let go by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 and that was in the evening hours. The statement of applicant No. 10 gives quite a detailed account of his ordeal of his getting kidnapped for ransom and subjected to ruthless beating and also getting issued threats on his life. It appears that later on, something happened between applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 9 and 10 on the other hand, which led to realization of applicant Nos. 9 and 10 that whatever was alleged by them was only out of some misunderstanding between applicant Nos. 1 to 8 on the one hand and applicant Nos. 9 and 10 on the other hand. The realization now, as it is seen from this application, has resulted into a settlement between these parties and that is how this application has been filed by applicant Nos. 1 to 8 as well as applicant Nos. 9 & 10 jointly.