Amit @ Chotu S/O. Govind Yadav And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8130 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Amit @ Chotu S/O. Govind Yadav And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
                                 1                        apl454.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.454 OF 2017



  1. Amit @ Chotu s/o. Govind Yadav, 
      Aged about 29 years, Occ.
      Private.
  2. Deepak s/o. Govind Yadav, 
      Aged about 32 years, Occ.
      Private.
  3. Govind Yadav, 
      Aged about 58 years,
      Occ. Private.
  4. Sau. Santoshi w/o. Govind Yadav,
      Aged about 51 years, Occ.
      Household.
  5. Sau. Shikha w/o. Deepak Yadav,
      Aged about 31 years, Occ.
      Household.

      All r/o. Behind Sangh Building,
      Mahal, Nagpur.                           ..........      APPLICANTS


          // VERSUS //




::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:47 :::
                                    2                                   apl454.17.odt

     1.The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Police Station Officer,
        Police Station, Kotwali, 
        Nagpur.

     2.Trupti w/o. Amit Yadav,
        Aged about 28 years, Occ.Teacher, 
        r/o. C/o. Premlalji Yadav,
        Plot No.1, Shri Krishna Nagar,
        Wathoda Road, Nagpur.                   ..........       RESPONDENTS

         ____________________________________________________________  
                             Mr.S.T.Dhurvey, Advocate for the Applicants.
                       Mr.C.A.Lokhande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
                      Mr.Subhash Meshram, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
         ____________________________________________________________


                                       CORAM     :  ANOOP V. MOHTA
                                                           AND
                                                           M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 12.10.2017.

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 parties.

2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside First Information Report No.79 of 2016 lodged by respondent no.2. It is submitted that respondent no.2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:47 ::: 3 apl454.17.odt lodged report against the applicants in Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, during pendency of the divorce proceedings before the Family Court, Nagpur, the matter was settled between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. As per the terms of Settlement, respondent no.2 has received all the amounts/articles. Therefore, it is prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2.

3. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present before the Court along with their respective Counsel i.e. Mr.S.T.Dhurvey, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.C.A.Lokhande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State and Mr.Subhash Meshram, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. We have asked respondent no.2. She has stated that, as per the terms of Settlement, dt.20.4.2017, they have settled their disputes. As per the terms of Settlement, respondent no.2 has received all the articles/amounts as per the Settlement. Therefore, she does not want to prosecute all the applicants.

::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:47 :::

4 apl454.17.odt

4. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, matrimonial disputes once settled between the parties can be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings pendent between them. In the present case, respondent no.2/wife of applicant no.1 has settled her dispute and has agreed to withdraw all the cases against the applicants. In view of the settlement between them, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause of the application and quash and set aside First Information Report No.79 of 2016 lodged by respondent no.2 and proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Nagpur vide Regular Criminal Case No.3488 of 2016.

No order as to costs.

                               JUDGE                         JUDGE
   


  [jaiswal]




::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:47 :::
                                5               apl454.17.odt




::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017       ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:34:47 :::