Bombay High Court
Jayshankar S/O Gajendra Giri And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 April, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.A-5357-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5357 OF 2016
1. Jayshankar Gajendra Giri
Age : 26 years, Occu. Service
R/o Umbargaon Road, Sanjan,
Tq. Umbargaon, Dist. Walsad,
(Gujrat State)
2. Gajendra Dattubuva Giri
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o : Kanadi Road, Kaij, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
3. Chandrakala W/o Gajendra Giri
Age : 60 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Kanadi Road, Kaij, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed
4. Ganesh S/o Gajendra Giri
Age : 30 years, Occu. Agriculture
R/o : Kanadi Road, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
5. Meena W/o Ganesh Giri,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Kanadi Road, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
6. Ishwari W/o Sachin Giri,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Pimpari-Shiradhon,
Tq. Kalam, Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPLICANTS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Bardapur,
Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2017 00:05:34 :::
2 Cri.A-5357-16
2. Pranita Jayshankar Giri @
Pranita Prakash Giri
Age : 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Ujani, Tq. Ambajogai,
Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for applicants
Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, APP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for
Mr. S.A. Ambad, Advocate for respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 28th APRIL, 2017.
JUDGMENT : ( Per : S.S. SHINDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
consent of parties.
2. This Court on 18th November, 2016 and 20 th February, 2017
passed following orders:
ORDER
(18-11-2016)
1] As per the order passed in the morning, the
matter is taken up for hearing at 2.30. p.m.
Learned counsel for the applicant has tendered
across the bar the "Terms of Settlement" signed
by the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 duly
verified before the Registrar (Judicial). Same is
taken on record and marked "X" for the purpose
of identification. Parties are present in the Court
and are identified by their respective advocates.
3 Cri.A-5357-16
2] It is stated in the Terms of Settlement that
with the intervention of the elderly persons, the
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have set at
rest the dispute and decided to resume
cohabitation in their matrimonial house.
3] On interacting with the applicant No.1 and
respondent No. 2, they have stated that they
have voluntarily agreed to cohabit together
without any coercion.
4] It is true that the applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 have filed the terms of
settlement and respondent No.2 has agreed for
quashing of the FIR, however, in our opinion, it
would be in the interest of justice to wait for
another 3 months to dispose of this application,
on the basis of the "Terms of Settlement" filed
today before this court.
5] In view of the Terms of Settlement, the
applicant No.1 has stated that he would take
respondent No.2 to the matrimonial house from
today. In the light of the above, hearing of this
application is deferred by 3 months.
6] S.O. to 20th February, 2017. Till then, ad-
interim relief in terms of prayer clause (E).
7] The applicant No.1 and respondent No.2
are at liberty to file appropriate application before
the JMFC, Ambajogai, for postponing the hearing
of Misc. Criminal application NO. 211 of 2016 and
Criminal application No. 212 of 2016 pending
before the said Court. In case such application is
4 Cri.A-5357-16
filed by the parties, the concerned Court, keeping
in view the order pass today by this Court, defer
the hearing of those matters, till 25.2.2017 and
will post those applications for hearing on
27.2.2017.
8] Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.
ORDER
(20-02-2017)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties. Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 are
present. On interacting with them, they stated
that, from last three months they are residing
together happily. Terms of settlement are placed
on record, duly signed and verified by Applicant
No.1 and Respondent No.2.
2. In our opinion, hearing of this Application
deserves to be deferred for eight weeks so as to
view the conduct of the parties. In that view of
the matter, with the consent of the parties, list on
28th April 2017, for final disposal.
3. Till next date of hearing, ad-interim relief in
terms of prayer clause (E) to the Petition shall
remain in force.
3. Today, we have interacted with applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2. They have stated that they are happily
residing together and applicant No. 1 assures this Court that he
will treat and keep respondent No. 2 properly and happy.
5 Cri.A-5357-16
4. For the reasons which are already recorded in orders dated
18th November, 2016 and 20th February, 2017 and keeping in
view the exposition of law in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of
Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
continuation of further proceedings would be abuse of process of
Court. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to
allow the application. Accordingly, we allow the application in
terms of prayer clauses "B, C and D". Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
