Diliprao Dadaso Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jun 2008
- Bench
- MHATRE, NISHITA MHATRE, NISHITA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the fact that the complainant does not wish to proceed with his complaint, it would be futile to continue with the proceedings arising out of C.R. No.113 of 2008. There is no dispute that the grievance between the applicant and the…
Judgment
Mr.S.R. Chitnis i/b Mr.Ganesh Gole for Applicant Mr.R.S. Kate for Complainant Mr.P.A. Pol, APP, for State MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA JUNE 30, 2008 DATED: JUNE 30, 2008 JUNE 30, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The applicant has filed the present application for quashing proceedings arising out of C.R. No.113 of 2008 registered at Karad City police station, District Satara. The complainant had lodged an FIR which was registered for offences punishable under section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. The applicant and the complainant were partners in a partnership firm, Surya Builders along with some other partners. Differences arose between them and the complainant alleged that the applicant had forged the deed of partnership by inserting certain lines in clause 9 of the deed. Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant. Thereafter it appears that the applicant and the complainant have settled their grievances. The : 2 : complainant who is present in Court has filed an affidavit indicating that he does not have any grievance against the applicant including any dispute in respect of the accounts of Surya Builders. The complainant has averred in his affidavit that the disputes with the applicant had arisen due to some misunderstandings between them and today those issues have been ironed out.
In view of the fact that the complainant does not wish to proceed with his complaint, it would be futile to continue with the proceedings arising out of C.R. No.113 of 2008. There is no dispute that the grievance between the applicant and the complainant was personal in nature and did not involve any public policy. In such a situation it would be futile to continue with the proceedings as in all probability there would be no evidence to justify the allegations in the complaint. This is because the complainant himself has stated that he does not wish to pursue his complaint. The Supreme court in the case of Madan Mohan (Appeal (Civil) No.555 of Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (Appeal (Civil) No.555 of (Appeal (Civil) No.555 of 2008) has held that the Courts can ill afford the luxury 2008) 2008) to continue with the litigation which would be meaningless as it would not result in conviction.
The application is, therefore, allowed in terms : 3 : of amended prayer clause (a).
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Jun 2008. The bench was MHATRE, NISHITA MHATRE, NISHITA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.