Bombay High Court
Nandkishore Onkar Nakhate And ... vs Poonam Nandkishore Nakhate And ... on 5 July, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 apl210.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.210 OF 2016
1. Nandkishore Onkar Nakhate,
Aged 34 years, Occ. Service.
2. Onkar Devappa Nakhate,
Aged about 74 years.ig
3. Kokila Onkar Nakhate,
Aged about 65 years.
All above r/o. Flat No.204,
Shivneri tower, Kaulkhed Akola
Seema Gajanan Kulkarni
4. Seema Gajanan Kulkarni,
Aged about 38 years.
5. Dr. Gajanan Suresh Kulkarni,
Aged about 40 years.
Both respondent nos.4 and 5
r/o. Flat No.3, 4, Suman Plaza,
Jawahar nagar, Akola, Tq.
and Distt. Akola. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. Poonam Nandkishore Nakhate,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Housewife,
r/o. Flat No.201, Swami Samarth
Apartment Plot No.22, Balkrushna
Nagar, Manewada, P.S.Ajni,
Distt. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:16:47 :::
2 apl210.16.odt
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., Ajni,
District Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.C.A.Joshi, Adv. for the Applicants.
Mr.S.M.Uikey, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 petitioner has approached this Court for quashing
and setting aside First Information Report in Crime No.334 of 2015,
dt.19.10.2015, under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
pending before the Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur and consequential
proceedings i.e. R.C.C. No.1877 of 2016 pending before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur arising out of the said F.I.R.
3. Applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 were married to each
other on 19.5.2014. However, it appears that, soon after the
3 apl210.16.odt
marriage, there were differences between the husband and wife. As a
result of said differences, F.I.R. for the offences punishable under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code came to be lodged by non-
applicant no.1 against all the applicants. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are
parents of applicant no,1 whereas applicant nos. 4 and 5 are relatives
of applicant no.1.
4. It also appears that there were divorce proceedings
pending before the learned Family Court, Nagpur. During the
pendency of the present proceedings as well as the said proceedings
before the learned Family Court, the matter was settled between the
parties and that the proceedings for divorce were permitted to be
converted into one for divorce by mutual consent. The terms of
compromise are also filed in the said proceedings.
5. As per the compromise, an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- has
been agreed to be paid by applicant no.1 to non-applicant no.1.
Learned Counsel for non-applicant no.1 states that the said amount
is already received by non-applicant no.1.
4 apl210.16.odt
6. Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.1 are personally
present in the Court. They reiterate about settlement. Both the
applicants are identified by their respective Counsel.
7. 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
parties, this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to quash and give an end to the criminal
proceedings. 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.
8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) and
amended prayer clause i-a of the Criminal Application.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
