Bombay High Court
Anzar Ahmad Baig Mirza S/O ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 16 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl.277.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 277/2016
Anzar Ahmad Baig Mirza
s/o Mukkadder Baig Mirza
Aged about 40 years, occu: Advocate
R/o Plot No.32 Jai Hind Nagar,
Chhindwara Road, Nagpur-30. ..APPLICANT
v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through P.S.O. Gittikhadan, Nagpur
Tahsil & Dist. Nagpur.
2) Sheetal Sudhakar Deshpande
Aged about 33 years, occu: Advocate
R/o Quarter No.B-27
WCL Colony
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. ...NON-APPLICANTS
(RESPONDENTS)
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. S.Zia Qazi, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. D.P. Thakre, A.P.P. for Respondent no.1 -State
Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for Respondent no.2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &
Mrs. SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ .
DATED : 16th April, 2016
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
apl.277.16
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the
learned counsel for the parties finally, by consent.
2. The applicant is seeking quashment of the FIR No.
228/2014 registered on 10.06.2014 at Police Station Gittikhadan,
Nagpur against the applicant for the offences punishable under
sections 376B Amendment Act, 2013 and Section 376 of Indian
Penal Code, Charge-sheet No.142/2015 dated 26.6.2015 and
Sessions Trial No.410/2015 pending before the Sessions Judge,
Nagpur.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, the non-applicant
no.2 and the applicant were friends. They married on 04.05.2009
at Wardha and separated by divorce dated 21.01.2012. It is
alleged by non-applicant no.2 that the petitioner had promised for
re-union by way of re-marriage with non-applicant no.2 and on
the basis of false promise of re-marriage, the applicant has forcibly
established physical contact with non-applicant no.2. On the basis
of the FIR lodged by the non-applicant no.2, the offence was
registered under sections 376B and Section 376 of the IPC was
subsequently added.
apl.277.16
4. The applicant and non-applicant no.2 have resolved
their dispute amicably.
5. The applicant and non-applicant no.2 are present
before the Court and they reiterate about the settlement.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and
others vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003) 4 SCC 675
has held that if the matrimonial dispute has been settled between
the parties, this Court can exercise the powers u/s. 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to quash and give an end to the criminal proceedings.
7. Since in the present case, the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties and they have decided to
separate, in the interest of justice, this Court should exercise the
powers u/s 482 of Cr.PC. and give an end to the criminal
proceedings.
7. In view thereof, Criminal Application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Application.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
