Bombay High Court
Madan Gangaram Kokate And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.A-3014-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3014 OF 2015
1. Madan Gangaram Kokate,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service,
2. Gangaram Shivram Kokate,
Age: 49 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
3. Sau. Subhadra Gangaram Kokate,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household.
4.
Sopan Shivram Kokate,
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculturist.
5. Pradip Devram Kokate,
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
All R/o Santwadi, Kashti, Taluka
Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar ...APPLICANTS
(Accused Nos. 1 to 5)
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Shrigonda Police Station,
Taluka : Shrigonda, Dist: Ahmednagar
2. Sau. Jyoti Madan Kokate,
Age: 27 years, occu.: Household,
R/o.: C/o Anantrao Tukaram Dhonde,
Near Primary Health Centre, Gangai Nagar
Ashti, Taluka Ashti, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS
(Respdt. No. 2- ori. Complainant)
.....
Mr. P. B. Shirsath , Advocate for applicants
Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, APP for respondent - State
Mr. T. M. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent R/2
.....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 5 th DECEMBER, 2016.
2 Cri.A-3014-15
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per : S.S. Shinde, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and APP for the
respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of parties.
3. Pursuant to notice, respondent No. 2 has caused her appearance
through Advocate. A compromise pursis is filed by applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 and the same is verified before the learned Registrar
(Judicial) of this court. It appears that applicant No. 1 - husband and
respondent No. 2 - wife have produced their identity proof before the
learned Registrar (Judicial). Applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have
admitted the contents of the compromise pursis as true and correct
and their respective signatures on it. Applicant No. 1 and respondent
No. 2 are identified by their respective learned counsel appearing on
their behalf.
4. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record it clearly
emerges that, applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 with intervention
of relatives and friends decided to amicable settled their dispute,
pursuant to said settlement, applicant No. 1 has paid Rs.5,50,000/- to
respondent No. 2 towards permanent alimony during the pendency of
proceedings under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing
Hindu Marriage Petition No. 41 of 2016 before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Shrigonda, and accordingly the decree of divorce to that effect
has been passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda
vide order dated 26-09-2016. The parties have entered into settlement
3 Cri.A-3014-15
without any coercion and therefore there is no reason to keep the
present application pending.
5. In light of the discussion herein-above and keeping in view the
exposition of law in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and
another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, further continuation of
investigation and proceeding based upon crime No. I-118 of 2015
registered with Shrigonda Police Station for the offence punishable
under section 498-A,323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code would be abuse of process of law and wastage of time of
the prosecution agency and the Court. Hence, the application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause "B", which reads as under:-
(B) Quash and set aside the FIR bearing Crime No. I
-118/2015 registered at Shrigonda Police Station, Taluka
Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar u/s. 498-A,323,504, 506 r.w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicants and
for that purpose issue necessary order or directions.
6. Criminal Application is allowed in above terms. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
