Amit S/O Michel Gedam And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.I. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2443 Bom

                                                                                                                 apl.328.16
                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                                 ...

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 328/2016

1) Amit s/o Michel Gedam

Aged 35 years, occu: service

2) Vaishali w/o Amit Gedam Aged 29 years, occu: Housewife

3) Yester wd/o Michel Gedam Aged 60 years occu: household

All above 1 to 3 R/o Plot No,. 123, Income Tax Layout, Katol Bye-pass Road,

Dhabha, Wadi, Nagpur.

    4)        Sau.Smita  w/o Praful  Kamble
              Aged 40 years, occu: Household
              R/o Diocesan Office
       

              Cathedral Compound, Sadar
              Nagpur  440 001.                                                           ..APPLICANTS
    



                         v e r s u s

              State of  Maharashtra





              Through P.I.  Gittikhadan 
              Police Station, Nagpur.                                                    ...NON-APPLICANT
                                                                                            (RESPONDENT)

...........................................................................................................................

Mrs. Padma Chandekar/J.J. Alkari, Advocates for the applicants Ms.M.H.Deshmukh A.P.P. for Respondent -State

............................................................................................................................

                                                         CORAM:    B.R. GAVAI &
                                                                        Mrs. SWAPNA  JOSHI,JJ . 
                                                         DATED :        6th May,  2016

    JUDGMENT: (PER B.R. GAVAI,  J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel

apl.328.16

for the parties finally, by consent.

2. By way of present application, the applicants are praying for

quashing and setting aside the FIR so also the proceedings pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, court No.10, for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The applicants 1 and 2 were married to each other on 4.2.2011.

The applicants nos. 3 and 4 are the relatives of the applicant no.2.

4. It appears that though the marital life of applicant nos.1 and 2

was cordial, some differences arose after June 2015. On account of

differences, the applicant no.2 filed an FIR before Gittikhadan Police

Station for the offence punishable u/s. 498A of the IPC. It also appears that

during pendency of the Criminal Case, the applicant no.1 had filed the

petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The dispute was also referred for

mediation. The applicants 1 and 2 are also blessed with a son.

5. Taking into consideration the interest of the minor son, the

parties have resolved to give an end to their dispute and resume

cohabitation.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs.

State of Haryana and another: (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held that if the

matrimonial dispute has been settled between the parties, this Court can

exercise the powers u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash and give an end to the

criminal proceedings.

apl.328.16

7. In the present case, the parties have amicably settled the matter

and have also now cohabiting together. We find that the continuation of the

criminal proceedings would unnecessary come in the way of their peaceful

cohabitation. As the matter is amicably settled between the parties, we find

that this Court should exercise powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. and give an end to

the criminal proceedings.

8. The applicants are personally present in the Court and they

reiterate about the settlement. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of

prayer clause (i) & (ii) of the Application.

                    JUDGE                             JUDGE
       

    sahare