Bombay High Court
Smt. Sarika Subhash Kashikar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 5 July, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 apl416.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.416 OF 2016
1. Smt. Sarika Subhash Kashikar,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household,
r/o. C/o. Mrs. Durgabai Prajapati,
Near Dhenge Kirana Stores, Lane
No.17, Rajendranagar, Nandanwan,
Nagpur.
2. Subhash Omkar Kashikar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Painting
Work.
3. Omkar Mulchand Kashikar,
Aged about 70 years, Occ. Painting
work.
4. Sau. Arunabai Omkar Kashikar,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.Household.
5. Ku.Premkala @ Prema Omkar
Kashikar, Aged about 32 years,
Occ. Household.
6. Sau. Sulochna Kamlesh Prajapati,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business,
All r/o. Katharpura, Opp. Renuka
Mata Mandir, Badkas Chowk,
Police Station Kotwali, Mahal,
Nagpur. .......... APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:16:47 :::
2 apl416.16.odt
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kotwali Police Station,
Distt. Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENT
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.P.S.Tidke, Adv. for the Applicants.
Mr.T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ig CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 5.7.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing
and setting aside the First Information Report registered with the
Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur vide Crime No.71 of 2010 and
consequential proceedings thereto.
3 apl416.16.odt
3. Applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 were married to each
other on 23.4.2008. They resided together for 1½ years and they
were blessed with the male child namely Mohit. Rest of the
applicants are relatives of applicant no.1. However, it appears that,
subsequently, differences arose between applicant no.1 and applicant
no.2. Therefore, applicant no.1 filed various proceedings against rest
of the applicants including the aforesaid F.I.R.
4.
However, in the proceedings pending before the learned
Family Court, the matter has been amicably settled. The petition
filed for divorce was permitted to be converted as a petition for
divorce by mutual consent. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been
paid by applicant no.2 to applicant no.1.
5. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are personally present in the
Court and they are identified by their respective Counsel. Applicant
nos. 1 and 2 reiterate about their settlement.
6. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and Others vs.
State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has
held that if the matrimonial dispute has been settled between the
4 apl416.16.odt
parties, this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to quash and give an end to the criminal
proceedings.
6. We find that the present case is a fit case where this
Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and give an end to the criminal proceedings. Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the present Criminal
Application.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
