Bombay High Court
Rohini W/O Praful Dabhane And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
cwp190.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.190 OF 2016.
APPELLANTS: 1. Rohini w/o Praful Dabhane,
Maiden name Rohini d/o Raghunath Sonvne,
aged about 27 years, Occu: Govt.Service,
R/o Ashirvad Ekatmata Colony, Ring Road,
Ambejogai, Distt.Beed.
2. Praful s/o Sudam Dabhane,
aged about 30 years, Occu: Pvt.Job,
R/o Dhavasa, Post Umri,Tq.Karanja,
Kalmeshwar, Distt.Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer, P.S.
Narkhed, Distt.Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.M.A.Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.N.B.Jawade, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 28th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The petitioners have jointly approached this Court
praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.76 of 2013
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 385,
469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(A)
(B)(C) and (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The First Information Report is lodged by petitioner
no.1 stating therein that she was working in Panchayat Samiti
Narkhed as an Junior Assistant. It is alleged that in the said office
petitioner no.2 was also working on temporary basis. It is also
alleged in the FIR that petitioner no.2 used to induce petitioner
no.1 to get married to him and such inducement has instigated her
to perform certain rites and as such petitioner no.2 took her
signatures on the blank papers. It is further alleged in the FIR
that the petitioner no.2 used to threaten her and therefore, she
shifted to native place at Ambejogai. It is further alleged that
petitioner no.2 has thereafter posted certain photographs of
petitioner no.1 on the face book.
4. However, it appears that the petitioner no.1 has filed
petition against petitioner no.2 under Section 12 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for nullity of marriage before the learned Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Ambejogai. The petitioner no.2 has also filed petition
against petitioner no.1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. However, it appears that
subsequently the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent and according to them settlement has arrived at
between them on 16th of July, 2015. The said settlement is placed
on record at Annexure 'E'. One of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement is that all complaints lodged by both the petitioners
against each other will be withdrawn and in future they will not
file any proceedings against each other.
5. Both the petitioners are of young age. It appears that
on account of certain differences between them, the FIR in
question came to be filed by petitioner no.1 against petitioner
no.2. We find that now both the petitioners have resolved their
disputes and leads their life independently. We find that the
pendency of the proceedings would stand as an ambivalence for
both the petitioners during their life.
6. Both the petitioners are present in the Court and they
are identified by learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Narinder Singh and ors. ..vs.. State of Punjab and ors.,
reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, it is the fit case where powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be
exercise for giving end to the litigation.
8. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (i)
of the application.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
