1 apl298.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.298 OF 2017
1. Mr.Tejindersingh s/o. Guruvachansingh
Sehmi, Aged about 33 years, Occ.
Business.
2. Mrs. Ranjit Kaur w/o. Guruvachansingh
Sehmi,
3. Mr.Guruvachansingh Sehmi,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business.
All r/o. Plot No.37, Gurunanakpura,
Near Gurudwara, Pachpaoli,
Nagpur. .......... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Pachpaoli Police Station,
Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2. (Mrs.Satvinderkaur w/o.
Tejindersingh Sahemi) Deleted. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 :::
2 apl298.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.S.D.Deoras, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
*******
Date of reserving the Judgment : 20.11.2017.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 23.11.2017.
*******
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed to quash the First Information Report No.477 of 2008, dt.22.12.2008 and to quash the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.743 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.
3. It is submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 were legally wedded husband and wife. After the marriage, respondent no.2 gave birth to two children namely Ku.Gurleen Kaur ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 ::: 3 apl298.17.odt and Harshdeep Singh. There was no dispute between applicant no.1 and his wife/respondent no.2 till the year 2008. Due to some misunderstanding, respondent no.2 lodged report vide F.I.R. No.477 of 2008 at Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur. Charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur vide Regular Criminal Case No.743 of 2009.
4. It is submitted that there was a family meeting. The dispute was settled in the said meeting. Respondent no.2 joined the company of applicant no.1 at her matrimonial home and since then she was residing with applicant happily. In the meeting, respondent no.2 fairly had admitted in presence of her parents that, due to annoyance, she had lodged report against the applicants. Since applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are residing happily with their children, it is prayed to quash the F.I.R. and charge sheet.
5. During pendency of the petition, respondent no.2 died. Respondent no.1 has filed reply. In para no.2, respondent no.1 has submitted that respondent no.2 was residing with the applicants since the year 2010 along with their children. In the year 2017, the respondent no.2 was ill. During medical treatment, she died. ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 :::
4 apl298.17.odt
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Perused the reply filed by respondent no.1 and statements recorded by PSI Ingle. From the perusal of the statements, it is clear that respondent no.2 was residing with applicant no.1 after lodging report. There was settlement between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. In the year 2017, she was sick. She was admitted in Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Nagpur. She died on 20.5.2017.
7. As per the submission of applicants and reply filed by respondent no.1 and the statements on record, it is clear that respondent no.2 lodged the report due to misunderstanding. After lodging report, she started residing with the applicants. During pendency of the proceedings, she died in Lata Mangeshkar hospital, Nagpur. There is no possibility of any conviction. In such circumstances, pendency of criminal case will be nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, we pass the following order : ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 :::
5 apl298.17.odt
// ORDER //
The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Criminal Application.
The F.I.R. In Crime No.477 of 2008 and the proceedings in Regular Criminal case No.743 of 2009 are hereby quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 ::: 6 apl298.17.odt ::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 :::