PANAJI
In the first case one Menino Camilo Fernandes approached the HC to quash a chargesheet against him for allegedly assaulting his friend’s son on the playground.
Menino’s neighbour and friend, José Dias, had filed a case against Menino for striking his (José’s) son, then aged 14, when he was playing football along with Menino’s son, then aged 11.
The case came to be registered by the Colva Police under sections 323 IPC and under Section 8(2) of The Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
However, since then, Menino and José as well as their children have amicably settled the dispute that arose between them and did not wish that the case proceed any further.
They are neighbours and their children are friends; apart from that, the families now share cordial relationship. Therefore, keeping the interest of the families and more particularly that of the children José Dias the original complainant unequivocally withdrew his complaint.
The Court quashed and set aside the FIR and the chargesheet filed before the Children’s Court.
In the second case, a group of scuffling students, who had initially filed complaints against each other had approached the court saying they wanted to settle the matter, owing to the fact that they had their entire careers before them.Sometime on October 29, 2016, at 9.30 pm while one Sailee Bandodkar along with her friends and relatives was on the way back from dinner, there was a scuffle between them and the petitioners - Bhanu Khajuria, Akshat Rastogi, Ajay Singh, Aniket Soral, Hiten Shubham, Ishaan Sharma natives of Madhya Pradesh, filed a complaint on October 30, 2016 resulting in the registration of the FIR.
Since then however, the two groups had amicably settled the disputes and the differences between them and did not wish to prosecute the case any further and decided to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
They had agreed to settle the disputes and differences between themselves and had filed the present petition. The petitioners being students were affected in their academic career to a colossal extent and therefore, prayed for the quashing of the FIR and consequently the criminal case.
Bandodkar filed her affidavit reiterating on oath that the petitioners had approached her and represented that the criminal complaint and the consequent proceedings were on account of a misunderstanding between them. She had no grievance against the petitioners and was not desirous of continuing the criminal proceedings which was causing inconvenience to her and the other persons arrayed as witnesses. She was, therefore, freely consenting to quashing of the criminal proceedings and the chargesheet against the petitioners.
Citing similar grounds the HC quashed this chargesheet as well.
