Sau. Amruta W/O Vibhush Samarth ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2446 Bom

1 apl.237.16.jud

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.237 OF 2016

Applicants : 1] Sau. Amruta w/o Vibhush Samarth, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife.

2] Shri Vibhush s/o Prabhakar Samarth,

Aged about 30 years, Occ. Service.

ig Applicant Nos.1 & 2 now r/o Rajmeet Apartments, Flat No.204, Om Nagar, Koradi Road, Nagpur.

3] Vipin s/o Prabhakar Samarth, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Business.

4] Shri Prabhakar s/o Ramchandra Samarth, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business.

5] Sau. Sangita w/o Prabhakar Samarth, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Housewife.

Applicant Nos.3 to 5 r/o Vaishali Nagar, LIG Quarter No.9/16, Nagpur.

-- Versus --

Non-Applicant : State of Maharashtra,

Through Officer In Charge, Police Station Pachpaoli, Nagpur.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri N.R. Bhishikar, Advocate for the Applicants Shri M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ DATE : MAY 6, 2016.

2 apl.237.16.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 the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case

No.3132/2014 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5,

Nagpur.

03] The applicant No.1 and the applicant No.2 married to each

others on 09/05/2011. They are also blessed with a son. It appears that

after the marriage, there were some matrimonial discords between them

and as such the applicant No.1 lodged an F.I.R. against applicant

Nos.2 to 5. It appears that applicant Nos.3 to 5 are the relatives of

applicant No.2.

04] It also appears that during pendency of the aforesaid criminal

case, the matter was referred for mediation. The parties taking into

consideration the future of the minor child have resolved their dispute and

have decided to reunite. The applicant No.1 and the applicant No.2 are

3 apl.237.16.jud

personally present in the Court and they reiterated the word of said

settlement.

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.

06] It can be seen that in the present case the matter is amicably

settled. The parties are reunited and residing together. In our considered

view, pendency of the criminal case would unnecessary come in the way of

their peaceful cohabitation.

07] In that view of the matter, 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.

08] Hence, the criminal application is allowed. Rule is made

absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).

                               JUDGE                                JUDGE
     *sdw