1 APL610-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APL) No. 610/2016
...
1. Kartik Narayan Meshram,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation: Mason,
2. Narayan Nathuji Meshram,
Aged about 59 yeas,
Occupation: Mason,
3. Sau. Kamlabai w/o Narayan
Meshram, Aged about 58 years,
Occupation: Household,
Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 R/o Mouza
Kopitola, Post Tigaon,
Tahsil Amgaon, Dist. Gondia.
4. Ku. Rajkumari d/o Wamanrao Dani,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation: Nurse, R/o Plot No.36,
Dupare Layout, Indraprasth Nagar,
Nagpur (City). .. APPLICANTS
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Of Police Station
Sonegaon, Nagpur (City).
2. Sau. Priyanka w/o Kartik Meshram,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation: Household, R/o Mouza
Kopitola, Post Tigaon,
Tahsil Amgaon,Distt. Gondia. .. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:53 :::
2 APL610-16.odt
Mr. E.W. Nawab, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
....
CORAM : B.R. Gavai & Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
DATED : March 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicants have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings vide Regular Criminal Case No.2784/2016 arising out of Crime No.55 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were married to each other on 2.2.2012. However, it appears that soon after the marriage, the relations between the husband and wife became strained and they started residing separately. As a result of strained relationship, respondent no.2 filed an first information report for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:53 ::: 3 APL610-16.odt against applicant no.1- husband and rest of the applicants who are the relatives of applicant no.1.
4. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings the parties realised that the relations between them were irretrievably broken and there were no chances of reconciliation. As such they applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The said petition was allowed and the decree of divorce is passed.
5. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have decided to give an end to the criminal proceedings pending between them. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are personally present in the Court and they reiterate about the settlement.
6. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others .vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 has held that if the parties have resolved to settle their matrimonial dispute, the Court should give an end to the criminal proceedings. We find that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to give an end to the criminal proceedings between the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:54 :::
4 APL610-16.odt
7. In that view of the matter we find that the application deserves to be allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of the prayer clause.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.)
...
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:54 :::