Bombay High Court
Vipin Gokul Badhiye And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 14 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
49-APL-172-16 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.172 OF 2016
1. Vipin Gokul Badhiye
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
2. Shobha Gokul Badhiye,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Household
3. Gauri Hemant Getme,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household
4. Rani Sanjay Jheliye
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household,
5. Vaishali Dhiraj Kawre,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Household,
6. Hemant Getme
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private
7. Sanjay Jheliye,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Private
8. Nikita Vipin Badhiye
Aged about 27 years. Occ. Household
All R/o Plot No.24, Patel Nagar,
Dinshaw Factory, Nagpur. ... Applicants.
-vs-
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Gittikhadan
Nagpur. ... Respondent.
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, counsel for applicants.
Shri M. J. Khan, APP for the State.
49-APL-172-16 2/3
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATE : MARCH 14, 2016
Oral Judgment : ( As per B. R. Gavai, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The applicants have filed the present joint application for
quashing and setting aside the proceedings arising out of Crime No.469 of
2015 and consequential proceedings in R.C.C./973/2016 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur.
2. The applicant No.1 and applicant No.8 were married to each
other on 25/06/2014. It appears that there arose certain disputes between
the applicant No.1 and the applicant No.8 as a consequence thereof an F.I.R
came to be lodged by applicant No.8 against the applicant No.1/husband
and rest of his relatives. After the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
and as such, the criminal case is registered in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.10, Nagpur.
3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant No.1 and
applicant No.8 have resolved their disputes. They are residing together.
Applicant No.8 therefore, does not wish to prosecute the criminal
proceedings filed against her husband and rest of the relatives.
49-APL-172-16 3/3
4. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi And Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that if the parties
arrive at settlement in a matrimonial dispute, then the Court should exercise
powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give an end to
the criminal proceedings. The applicant Nos.1 and 8 are personally present
in the Court. They are identified by their learned counsel. The applicant
Nos.1 and 8 reiterate about the settlement between them.
5. In that view of the matter, we find that this is a fit case to exercise
powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give an end to
the criminal proceedings in terms of settlement arrived at between the
parties.
Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1). No
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
