Bombay High Court
Viraj S/O Vinayak Borkar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 apl.325.16.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.325 OF 2016
Applicants : 1] Shri Viraj s/o Vinayak Borkar,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Rajura, Tah. Rajura,
District Chandrapur.
2] Mrs. Veena s/o Vinayak Borkar,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Service.
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Rajura, Tah. Rajura,
District Chandrapur.
-- Versus --
Non-Applicants : 1] The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Rajura Police Station, Rajura,
District Chandrapur.
2] Mrs. Ankita alias Vanashri Viraj Borkar,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Household,
R/o C/o Diliprao Mohanrao Awadhut,
Forest Colony, Near Bhawanji Bhai School,
Mul Road, Tah. Chandrapur, District Chandrapur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri Rohit Masurkar, Advocate for the Applicants
Ms. Ritu Kaliya, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : MAY 6, 2016.
2 apl.325.16.jud
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
02] By the present application, the applicants have prayed for
quashing and setting aside F.I.R. No.112/2016, registered by Police Station
Rajura, District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03] The applicant No.1 and the applicant No.2 were married to
each others on 28/11/2014 at Rajura, District Chandrapur. It appears that
soon after the marriage, as there were some matrimonial discords between
them, they started residing separately. It also appears that as a
consequence of the said discord, the F.I.R. in question came to be lodged
against the applicant Nos.1 and his mother i.e. applicant No.2. However,
during pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant No.1 and non-
applicant No.2 have found that it is not possible for them to cohabit and,
therefore, they have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.
Accordingly, a petition is also filed for dissolution of marriage under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3 apl.325.16.jud
04] The applicant Nos.1 and 2 and non-applicant No.2 are
personally present in the Court. The non-applicant No.2 states that she is
not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution against her husband
and her mother-in-law.
05] The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State
of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that if
the matrimonial dispute has been settled between the parties, this Court
can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to
quash and give an end to the criminal proceedings. We find that the
present case is a fit case where this Court should exercise powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and give an end to the
criminal proceedings.
06] In that view of the matter, the criminal application is allowed.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
JUDGE JUDGE
*sdw
