apl.625.16.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.625 OF 2016
1] Ranjan s/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 28 years, Occu. Service.
2] Prakash s/o Jangluji Chapke,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Business.
3] Sau. Kantabai w/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. Household.
4] Nilesh s/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. Business.
All r/o Plot No.58, Vitthalwadi,
Renuka Mata Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur ..... Applicants
--- Versus --
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. of Police Station,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur City.
2] Sau. Pallavi w/o Ranjan Chapke,
Aged about 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Plot No.58, Vitthalwadi,
Renuka Mata Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur. ..... Non-Applicants
--------------------
Shri E.W. Nawab, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1.
Shri M.S. Rehman, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.
-------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 01:01:54 :::
apl.625.16.jud.doc 2
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 6, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 02] The applicants have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. arising out of the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2 against them vide Crime No.118/2016 with the Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 354-A, 498-A, 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 were married to each other on 28/05/2015. It appears that in the month of March, 2016, there arose some matrimonial disputes between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2. As a result of which, false first information report came to be lodged by non-applicant no.2- wife against applicant no.1-husband and his relatives. ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 01:01:54 ::: apl.625.16.jud.doc 3 04] It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and they have decided to reside together.
05] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are personally present in the Court. They are identified by their respective Counsel. They reiterate that the matter has been amicably settled between them. Non-applicant no.2 states that she is not interested in continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicants. It is also informed that the applicant and non- applicant no.2 are now residing together. 06] The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that if the matrimonial dispute has been settled between the parties, this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and give an end to the criminal proceedings.
07] In the present case, since the matter is amicably settled and the parties are reunited and residing together, in our ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 01:01:54 ::: apl.625.16.jud.doc 4 considered view, pendency of the criminal case would unnecessary come in the way of their peaceful cohabitation. 08] In that view of the matter, we find that the present case is a fit case where this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and give an end to the criminal proceedings.
09] Hence, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J)
*sdw
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 01:01:54 :::