Bombay High Court
Smt. Priyanka W/O Shashikant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 29 June, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl387.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.387 OF 2016.
APPLICANTS: 1. Smt.Priyanka w/o Shashikant Kamble,
aged 32 years, Occu: Housewife.
2. Shri Shashikant Mahadev Kamble,
ig aged 42 years, Occu: Service,
Both are resident of house of Anil Ragde,
Plot No.165, N-4, Parijat Nagar,
Aurangabad.
3. Shri Mahadev s/o Balkrishna Kamble,
aged 72 years, Occu: Retired.
4. Smt.Shakuntala w/o Mahadev Kamble,
aged 64 years, Occu: Housewife.
5. Smt.Sheetal w/o Anand Sangodkar,
aged about 36 years, Occu: Housewife.
6. Shri Anand s/o Jagdish Sangodkar,
aged 42 years, Occu: Service.
7. Ku.Manisha d/o Mahadev Kamble,
aged about 42 years, Occu: Service,
Applicant Nos.3 to 7 are resident of
Plot No.39, Kapse Layout, Dindayal Nagar,
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:32 :::
apl387.16 2
8. Smt.Sushma w/o Mahendra Chavan,
aged 44 years, Occu: Service,
Resident of lane no.12, near house of
Corporator Gajbhiye, Chandramani
Nagar, Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANT: The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Inspector,
Police Station Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.R.Prasad, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.V.A.Thakare, APP for the state.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 29th 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 applicants have approached this Court praying for
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:32 :::
apl387.16 3
quashing and setting aside the Criminal Proceedings i.e. Regular
Criminal Case No.302270 of 2012 arising out of FIR No.145 of
2012, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the
complaint of applicant no.1.
3.
The applicant no.1 is the wife of applicant no.2. Rest of
the applicants are relatives of the applicant no.2.
4. The applicant nos.1 and 2 married to each other on 19 th
of April, 2007. However, it appears that there were certain
disputes between them. As a result of it, the aforesaid FIR came
to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After
completion of investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed and
a Regular Criminal Case is also registered before the learned
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:32 :::
apl387.16 4
5. However, it appears that applicant no.1 had filed a
petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. During the pendency
of the aforesaid petition the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties. Now, the applicant nos.1 and 2 have decided
to resume cohabitation. The applicant nos.1 and 2 are personally
present in the Court and they reiterated about the settlement.
6. It is to be noted that this Court day in and day out, in
catena of cases, relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of
B.S.Joshi and ors. ..vs.. State of Haryana and anr. reported in
(2003)4 SCC 675 has quashed various F.I.Rs. and complaints on
account of the settlement between the parties in their matrimonial
dispute.
7. Since, in the present case, parties have amicably settled
the disputes and also resumed cohabitation, we find that it will be
in the interest of justice to give an end to the litigation. Hence, we
pass the following order.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:32 :::
apl387.16 5
ORDER
Proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.302270 of
2012 arising out of FIR No.145 of 2012 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of 20 th of Joint Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nagpur is quashed.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
