2909APL667.17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 667 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1. Chandni w/o Mohd Shabbir Ansari, Aged
about 31 Yeras, Occu: Housewife, R/o :-
Walni, Mines, Qtr. No.107, Khaperkheda,
Nagpur.
2. Mohd. Shabbir S/o Rafique Ansari, Aged
about 42 years, Occ. Service, R/o House
No.4, Sohail Manzil, Jinsi Road,
Jahangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.).
3. Rafique s/o Sultan Ansari, Ageda bout 60
years, Occ. Retired,
4. Mumtaz Begam w/o Rafique Ansari, Aged
about 45 years, Occ. Housewife,
5. Shamma d/o Rafique Ansari, aged about 31
years, Occ.
6. Shabina d/o Rafique Ansari, Aged about 27
years, Occ.
All R/o Q.No.1063, Shobhapur Railway
Colony, Betul (M.P.).
7. Sabiya w/o Mumtaz Ansari, Aged about 32
years, Occ: Housewife, R/o-Calac Colony
Shobhapur Betul (M.P.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- State of Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer, Khaparkheda, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:09:55 :::
2909APL667.17-Judgment 2/4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tejas Patil, counsel for the applicants.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Additional Public Prosecutors for the non-applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 29.09.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission 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 applicant Nos.2 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 66(d), 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
3. The applicant No.1 was married to the applicant No.2 in the year 2009. It is stated on behalf of the applicant No.1 that in a fit of anger, the applicant No.1 had lodged a report against the applicant Nos.2 to 7. It is stated that due to the intervention of elders and some ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:09:55 ::: 2909APL667.17-Judgment 3/4 members of the family, the applicants have settled the dispute as the applicant No.2 is ready to take back the applicant No.1 in the matrimonial home. It is stated that the applicants would not be able to live harmoniously if the first information report registered against the applicant Nos.2 to 7 is not quashed and set aside. It is stated that the applicant No.1 is not desirous of prosecuting the proceedings that may be launched against the applicant Nos.2 to 7.
4. All the applicants are present in the court today. The applicant No.2 has stated that she has settled the matter with the applicant Nos.2 to 7. It is stated that she wishes to live with the applicant Nos.2 to 7 in the matrimonial home. The non-applicant No.2 states that he is ready to accept the applicant No.1 in the matrimonial home and they desire to live in harmony. The applicant No.1 has stated that since she wishes to live in the matrimonial home along with the other applicants and does not wish to prosecute them, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report registered against the applicant Nos.2 to 7.
5. In the interest of justice, it would be necessary to allow the criminal application and quash and set aside the first information report registered against the applicant Nos.2 to 7, more so when the applicant ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:09:55 ::: 2909APL667.17-Judgment 4/4 Nos.2 to 7 are ready to welcome the applicant No.1 in the matrimonial house. Since the applicant No.1 is not desirous of prosecuting the matter against the applicant Nos.2 to 7, it is most unlikely that the trial would result in the conviction of the applicant Nos.2 to 7. When the compromise between the parties, specially in a matrimonial matter could itself be a consideration for quashing and setting aside the first information report, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first information report by relying on the judgments reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) and (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another), in this regard.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicant Nos.2 to 7 is hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:09:55 :::