Bombay High Court
Roshan S/O Anand Wahane And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S. ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl405.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application [APL] No. 405 of 2016
1. Roshan son of Anand Wahane,
aged 35 years,
occupation - Private service,
2. Atul son of Anand Wahane,
aged 30 years,
occupation - Private Service,
residents of New Babulkheda,
Maitreyee Buddha Vihar,
Nagpur.
3. Anand son of Laxman Wahane,
aged 68 years,
occupation - Retired,
all nos. 1 to 3 residents of New
Babulkheda,
Maitreyee Buddha Vihar,
Nagpur.
4. Smt. Babita wife of Shashikant
Ramteke,
aged 38 years,
occupation - Household,
resident of near Water Tank,
Neelkanth Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur. ,
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:01:34 :::
apl405.16
2
5. Smt. Saraswatibai wife of
Anandrao Wahane,
aged about 60 years,
occupation - Household,
resident of New Babulkheda,
Maitreyee Buddha Vihar,
Nagpur. ..... Applicants.
Versus
1.
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station
Officer,
Police Station, Ajni,
Nagpur.
2. Smt. Nisha wife of Roshan
Wahane,
aged about 27 years,
occupation - nil,
resident of C/o Arun Kosare,
Plot No. 155-A, Diwan Layout,
Swami Nagar, Tata Square,
Manewada, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. Mandpe, Adv., for the Applicants.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.
Ms. R.M. Padhye, Adv., for respondent no.2.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:01:34 :::
apl405.16
3
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Date : 20th June, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mrs. S. S. Jachak, waives service for respondent
no.1, and learned Adv. Ms. R.M. Padhye, for respondent no.2. Heard
learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of rival parties, this
Criminal Application is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by
this Judgment and Order.
02. By way of present Application, the Applicants have
approached this Court with a request for quashing and setting aside
the First Information Report No.166/14 dated 6th June, 2014, and the
proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 327 of 2015 arising out of the
same.
03. The Applicant No.1 was married to respondent no.2 on 27th
April, 2012. The Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the relatives of the Applicant
No.1.
apl405.16
04. However, it appears that soon after the marriage, there
arose differences between the applicant no. 1 and Respondent No.2,
and they could not co-habit. As a result, the respondent no.2 lodged a
complaint with the police, on the basis whereof, the aforesaid First
Information Report came to be registered against the Applicant no.1
and the other applicants who are relatives of the Applicant No.1.
05.
It also appears that in the meantime, the respondent no.1
and the Applicant No.1 jointly filed the proceedings for dissolution of
marriage. In the said proceedings, mediation is successful, as the
parties have agreed to give an end to their relationship on the basis of
the terms as agreed before the Mediator. The Applicant No. 1 and
Respondent no.2, who are personally present before this Court,
reiterate about the settlement and further state that they have
resolved to give an end to their disputes, and live separately from each
other.
06. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & others Vs.
State of Haryana & another [ (2003) 4 SCC 675] has held that when
the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, this Court should
exercise powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to give
an end to the criminal proceedings. We, thus, find that the present
apl405.16
case is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482, Criminal
Procedure Code, for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.
07. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause
[1].
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
