Bombay High Court
Dharmendra @ Sonu S/O Shivram ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Apl194.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application [APL] No. 194 of 2016
Dharmendra @ Sonu son of
Shivram Chaware,
aged 25 years,
occupation Private Job,
resident of Kamgar Nagar,
near Gurunanak College,
KGH Society, Nagpur. ..... Applicant.
[Org. Accused]
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station
Officer,
Police Station, Jaripatka
Nagpur.
2. Smt. Mamta wife of Deoman
Tembhurne,
aged about 35 years,
occupation - Household,
resident of Takshashila
Nagar, Slum, Nari Road,
P.S. Jaripatka, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
.....Org. Complainant.
*****
Mr. Shashikant B. Bangde, Adv., for the Applicant.
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:16:59 :::
Apl194.16
2
Mr. Anil P. Ghule, Adv., for respondent no.2.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Date : 22nd June, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, waives service for respondent
no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. A. P. Ghule, 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 Applicant has approached
this Court for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report
dated 8th March, 2015 registered by the respondent no.1 on the
complaint of respondent no.2, vide Crime No. 123/15.
03. While issuing notice, we had perused the statements of
respondent no.2 - complainant as well as her husband, wherein a
Apl194.16
specific statement was made that there was a love relationship
between the Applicant and the daughter of the respondent no.2,
namely Aakansha. After receipt of notice, the respondent no.2 has
appeared in the Court and she has filed an affidavit. She has admitted
that there was a relationship between her daughter, Aakansha, and the
present applicant since last one-and-half-year and they were intending
to marry.
It is further stated in the affidavit that the daughter,
Aakansha, is intending to marry the applicant after attaining the age of
majority. In the affidavit, it is clearly stated that in these
circumstances the respondent no.2 does not wish to prosecute the
criminal proceedings. The respondent no.2 is personally present in the
Court and reiterates the said position.
04. In any case, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras [AIR 1965 SC 942
(V 52 C 150)], since the girl, Aakansha, is aged 17 years, she is in a
position to understand as to what is right and wrong for her and as
such ingredients of offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code,
would not be made out.
05. However, since the first informant herself, taking into
consideration the future of her daughter, does not wish to prosecute
Apl194.16
the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent no.1 on her
complaint, we are inclined to allow this Application.
06. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause
[1].
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
