APL 531/17 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 531/2017
1. Manish S/o Vasantrao Ekunkar,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation: Business.
2. Padmabai W/o Vasantrao Ekunkar,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation: Household.
3. Mahendra Vasantrao Ekunkar,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Business.
All R/o New Diamond Nagar, Police Station
Nandanvan, Nagpur. APPLICANTS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur.
2. Sau.Pooja Manish Ekunkar,
Aged about 22 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o C/o Godawari Layout, Plot No.112,
Butibori, Nagpur. NON-APPLICA
NTS
Shri N.V. Pradnyakar, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri K.R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 04 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) 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 seek the quashing and setting aside of the first information report registered against the applicants and the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.4203 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:03:26 :::
APL 531/17 2 Judgment
3. The applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 were married at Nagpur on 21.04.2014 and the non-applicant no.2 started residing in her matrimonial home at Nagpur since then. It appears that the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 could not live in harmony and there used to be quarrels over petty and trifle matters. Since the family life of the non-applicant no.2 was disturbed due to the disharmony in the matrimony, the non-applicant no.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.09.2014 and lodged a report in the police station. On the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant no.2, the first information report was registered against the applicants, viz. the husband, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The trial has commenced after the charge-sheet was filed and the applicants have sought for the quashing and setting aside of the first information report and the proceedings arising therefrom, as during the pendency of the trial, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the compromise pursis is submitted by the applicant no.1 and the non- applicant no.2 before the Family Court.
4. All the applicants and the non-applicant no.2 are personally present in the Court, today. The counsel for the applicants has identified the applicants as well as the non-applicant no.2. We have asked the ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:03:26 ::: APL 531/17 3 Judgment applicants and the non-applicant no.2 whether they have really compromised the matter between them and whether the marriage solemnized between the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 is sought to be dissolved on the terms mentioned in the compromise pursis filed before the Family Court. The applicants and the non-applicant no.2 have answered in the affirmative. The non-applicant no.2 states that she does not want to proceed against the applicants in the trial that is pending against them. It is stated that since the applicants and the non- applicant no.2 have amicably resolved the disputes between them and have further decided that they should withdraw the proceedings filed against each other, the first information report registered against the applicants may be quashed and set aside.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after being satisfied with the answers to the queries made to the parties, we are of the view that it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report registered against the applicants. Though the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 were not on good terms and there was disharmony in the matrimony, they have settled the disputes and have filed a compromise pursis before the Family Court. Since the non-applicant no.2 is not willing to proceed against the applicants in the criminal case that is pending against them, it is unlikely that the ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:03:26 ::: APL 531/17 4 Judgment prosecution would result in the conviction of the applicants. If that be so, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, it would be necessary to quash the first information report registered against the applicants and the proceedings arising therefrom. By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it would be necessary to quash the first information report registered against the applicants, as the compromise between the parties can itself be the consideration for quashing the first information report.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the penal Code and the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.4203 of 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:03:26 :::