Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Indrakesh Satya And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 23 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl260.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application [APL] No. 260 of 2016
1. Sachin son of Indrakesh Satya,
aged 32 years,
occupation service,
2. Sau. Vijayakanta wife of Indrakesh
Satya,
aged 59 years,
occupation - Household,
3. Indrakesh Narayanrao Satya,
aged 69 years,
occupation - Nil,
4. Nitin son of Indrakesh Satya,
aged 36 years,
occupation - Service,
5. Ku. Swati daughter of
Indrakesh Satya,
aged about 29 years,
occupation - Household,
6. Sau. Swarnakanta Nitin Satya,
aged about 28 years,
occupation - Household,
all nos. 1 to 6 residents of Vivekanand
Colony, Petrol Pump [Thana],
Jawaharnagar, Bhandara,
Tq. & Distt. Bhandara. ..... Applicants.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:24:02 :::
apl260.16
2
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station
Officer,
Police Station, Jawahar Nagar,
Bhandara,
Tq. & Distt. Bhandara.
2. Smt. Trushna Sachin Satya,
aged about 27 years,
occupation - Housewife
resident of C/o Chandrashekhar
Sukhdeve,
I-Wing, Flat No. 404,
Lodha Regency, Manpada,
Dombiwali [East],
Mumbai-01. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. D.V. Mahajan, Adv., for the Applicants.
Mr. M.J. Khan, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.
Sole.
Respondent no.2 personally present.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Date : 23rd June, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
apl260.16
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.J. Khan, waives service for respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 is personally present. 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
ig of present Application, the Applicants have
approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the proceedings
of Regular Criminal Case No. 146 of 2013 based on the Charge-Sheet
bearing No. 31/2013 dated 16th July, 2013 filed by the respondent no.1
- Jawaharnagar Police Station, Bhandara, against the applicants, on the
complaint lodged by respondent no.2, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 506 and 313 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
03. The Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2 were married
to each other on 02nd November, 2011. The Applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are
the relatives of the Applicant No.1.
04. However, it appears that soon after the marriage, there
arose differences between the applicant no. 1 and the Respondent
apl260.16
No.2. It further appears that the Applicant No.1 had also filed a
petition for divorce before the Civil Judge [Senior Division], Bhandara.
However, it appears that subsequently, the divorce proceedings are
transferred to the Court of Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kalyan. It also
appears that on account of the said dispute, the respondent no.2
lodged the First Information Report with Jawaharnagar Police Station,
Bhandara, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and
313 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of the complaint of respondent
no.2, Crime No. 47/13 came to be registered. On completion of
investigations, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
05. However, it appears that during pendency of the
proceedings, the parties have amicably settled the matter. The
Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have agreed to convert the
Petition for Divorce to the one for Divorce by Mutual Consent. It has
also been agreed that the Applicant No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.
8,50,000-00 [rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only] by way of
permanent alimony to the respondent no.2.
06. The Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2 are personally
present in the Court. Both of them are identified by the counsel for the
apl260.16
Applicants. They reiterate about their settlement.
07. 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
case is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482,
Criminal Procedure Code, for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.
08. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause
[i].
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
