Bombay High Court
Abhijit Govind Katre vs Prachi Abhijit Katre And Anr on 15 June, 2016
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
rpa 1/5 wp-1453-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1453 OF 2016
Abhijit Govind Katre .. Petitioner
V/s.
Mrs. Prachi Abhijit Katre & Anr. .. Respondents
......
Mr. Nikhil Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. M. D. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.2 - State.
ig ......
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 15, 2016.
JUDGMENT (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 Learned APP waives service for Respondent No. 2 -
State.
3 The petitioner challenged the proceedings in R.C.C.
No. 1058 of 2014 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pune. The said proceedings are initiated by first
rpa 2/5 wp-1453-16.doc
respondent alleging offences punishable under Sections, 403,
409, 420, 463, 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
Petitioner is being impleaded as an accused in the said
proceedings. First respondent is the wife of the petitioner.
4 The grievance of the complainant in the subject
criminal proceedings can be summarized as follows:-
The marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnized on 19th June, 2003. Complainant/first
respondent was a sole proprietor of the concern viz SAS
Associates. Due to nature of work and growing business, the
complainant decided to turn the concern into a private limited
company. However, the relations between the petitioner and the
complainant were strained. On account of differences, the
complainant started staying separately from 29 th March, 2012.
The accused filed a petition for divorce on 18 th July, 2013. The
first respondent / complainant realised that the accused have
created certain false documents to show that the complainant has
resigned from the office as director of the said company. Hence,
she filed a complaint on 10th January, 2014. The said proceedings
are pending in the Court of JMFC, Pune.
rpa 3/5 wp-1453-16.doc
5 The petitioner has stated that during the proceedings
before the Family Court, the petitioner and first respondent have
arrived at a compromise and settled their disputes. They have
also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. A copy of the
said petition has been annexed to this petition. In the said
petition, it is stated that the first respondent shall withdraw the
complaint filed by her which is pending in the Court of JMFC,
Pune being number as R.C.C. No.1058 of 2014. It is also stated
that they had agreed to initiate proceedings before the High
Court for quashing the said complaint. The said divorce petition
also contain several other terms and conditions.
6 We have perused the petition as well as the
documents annexed therein. The counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as the first respondent have submitted that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is submitted that the
petitioner and the first respondent being husband and wife had
matrimonial disputes which are being resolved. It is further
submitted that all the disputes between both the parties are
being settled and in view of the settlement, first respondent has
consented for quashing the prosecution launched against the
petitioner.
rpa 4/5 wp-1453-16.doc
7 We have considered the submissions advanced by the
advocate appearing for the respective parties. The petitioner and
the complainant are present before the Court and have stated
that they have put an end to the dispute. It is apparent that there
was matrimonial differences between the parties. They have filed
a petition for divorce by mutual consent. They have also entered
into a Consent Terms which are reflected in the said petition. It is
clear that the prosecution under challenge is arising out of the
matrimonial dispute between both the parties. In view of the
circumstances, we are inclined to entertain the petition and grant
the prayer made therein. Reliance is placed on the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Anr.1, The Apex Court in the said decision has observed that in a
dispute which is of a private nature, the powers of quashing can
be exercised by the High Court in the event of amicable
settlement being arrived at between the parties. In view of the
factual aspects of the present proceedings, we pass the following
order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Rule is made absolute.
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
rpa 5/5 wp-1453-16.doc
(ii) The impugned proceedings in R.C.C. No. 1058
of 2014 pending before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections, 403, 409, 420, 463, 467
of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed and set
aside.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
