Nitin S/O Madhukarrao Karemore vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 661 Bom

    1-Cr.W.P.200-16                                                                             1/3


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                        
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.200 OF 2016




                                                                
    Nitin s/o Madhukarro Karemore
    Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service. 




                                                               
    R/o Old Ram Mandir, Ayodhya Nagar, 
    Nagpur.                                                          ... Petitioner

    -vs- 




                                                  
    1.  State of Maharashtra,
         through Police Station Officer, 
                                      
         Police Station, Bhandara. 

    2.  Ruchira w/o Nitin Karemore
                                     
         aged about 23 years, Occ. Nil. 
         C/o Ram Shobharam Dhomane, 
         Plot No.105, Vidyanagar, Bhandara.                      ... Respondents. 

Shri U. R. Phasate, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri M. J. Khan, APP for respondent No.1/State. Shri V. D. Mulay, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.

DATE : MARCH 16, 2016

Oral Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is the husband of

respondent No.2 seeks quashing of the proceedings that have commenced

with the filing of FIR No.92/2014.

1-Cr.W.P.200-16 2/3

2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were married on

27/05/2013. However, on account of some matrimonial discord both the

parties had filed proceedings against each other. The respondent No.2 has

filed criminal proceedings under provisions of Section 498A read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However it appears that during

pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a compromise that

has been put down in writing dated 10/02/2016 wherein it has been decided

amongst other terms that the criminal proceedings shall put to an end. It is

therefore submitted by Shri U. R. Phasate, the learned counsel for the

petitioner that considering these aspects, the criminal proceedings deserve to

be put to an end.

3. Shri V. D. Mulay, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 does

not dispute the terms of compromise dated 10/02/2016. He states that the

parties would be acting as per the terms mentioned therein.

The petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 are present in Court

and they are identified by their learned counsel. They admit to the contents

of the terms of compromise dated 10/02/2016. The Honourable Supreme

Court in case of B. S. Joshi And Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported

in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that in matrimonial proceedings if the parties

arrive at an amicable settlement, then this Court in exercise of powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 can quash the criminal

1-Cr.W.P.200-16 3/3

proceedings. Considering the fact that the parties have mutually agreed to

the terms of compromise and one such term is to give an end to the criminal

proceedings, we are inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings.

4. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.

Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (3).

There would be no order as to costs.

                                                        JUDGE                            JUDGE
               
            






    Asmita