Bombay High Court
Ranjit Basweshwar Lamture And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 August, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) crwp601.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2017
* * * * *
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2016
1. Vijay s/o. Basweshwar Lamture .. Petitioners
Age. 25 years, Occ. Education
2. Vijayshree w/o. Chandrakant Bhusare
Age. 28 years, Occ. Household
3. Ashabai w/o. Mahaling Lamture
Age. 48 years, Occ. Household
All R/o. Yusuf Wadgaon, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through Police Inspector
Police Station, Yousuf Wadgaon,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
2. Mayuri w/o. Ranjeet Lamture
Age. 20 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Rameshwar Shidhaling Sambre,
Near Old Police Station, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2017
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:41 :::
(2) crwp601.16
1. Ranjit Basweshwar Lamture .. Petitioners
Age. 30 years, Occ. Nil,
2. Basweshwar Ramling Lamture
Age. 60 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. As above.
3. Kamal Basweshwar Lamture
Age. 55 years, Occ. Household,
All R/o. Yousufwadgaon, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through Police Inspector
Yousuf Wadgaon Police Station,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
2. Mayuri w/o. Ranjeet Lamture
Age. 20 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Yusuf Wadgaon, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.
Mr. H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED : 01.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : S.S.SHINDE,J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
with the consent of the parties.
(3) crwp601.16
2. Pursuant to the notices issued to the
respondents, respondent No.2 has caused appearance
through Advocate Mr.S.B. Choudhari in both the writ
petitions. The petitioners and respondent No.2 have
filed a compromise pursis duly verified before the
Section Officer of the Registry of this Court. The
parties are identified by the learned Counsels appearing
for them. The identity proof is also placed on record.
3. It is stated in the compromise pursis that the
petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled the matter
amicably on the terms and conditions stated in the said
compromise pursis. The HMP No.39 of 2017 is filed before
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai for divorce
with mutual consent. As per the settlement arrived at
between the parties the petitioner - Ranjit Basweshwar
Lamture paid Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to
respondent No.2 on 17.03.2017, in presence of two
witnesses out of the Court and respondent No.2 has
(4) crwp601.16
received the said amount. There are other details stated
in the compromise pursis. Since the said compromise
pursis is a part of record of this Court, it is not
necessary to reproduce other minute details stated in the
said compromise pursis.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2
submits that the amount of Rs.3 lakhs which is given by
the petitioner - Ranjit to respondent No.2 is deposited
in the saving account of respondent No.2, namely, Mayuri
in account No.1457104000053978, in IDBI Bank, Kaij.
Though the amount is deposited in the saving account,
during the course of hearing of present petition
respondent No.2 and her father, who are present in the
Court, have decided to keep the said amount in the fixed
deposit. In the light of said statement of respondent
No.2, we expect that said amount be deposited in the
fixed deposit within two weeks from today, in the name of
respondent No.2, initially for two years. If said amount
is deposited in the fixed deposit, we make it clear that
(5) crwp601.16
respondent No.2 will be entitled to receive accrued
interest on the said amount quarterly i.e. after every
three months. We also make it clear that it will be open
for respondent No.2 to renew the said fixed deposit.
5. Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have
amicably settled the dispute and on interaction with
respondent No.2, she stated that it is her voluntary act
without any coercion to agree for such settlement, we are
of the view that no purpose will be served by further
investigation in FIR No.24 of 2016 and continuation of
the proceedings arising out of said FIR. Continuation of
said proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Gyansingh reported in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has
taken a view that if the parties have amicably settled
the dispute voluntarily and if the offences are not
punishable with death or life imprisonment or under the
Special Act like the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. in
that case in order to secure ends of justice and to
(6) crwp601.16
prevent abuse of process of law, the High Court while
exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can
quash the FIR or the charge-sheet as the case may be.
Keeping in view the exposition of law in the case of Gian
Singh (Supra), we pass the following order :-
(i) Both the criminal writ petitions are
allowed.
(ii) Rule made absolute in both the
criminal writ petitions in terms of prayer
clause (B).
(iii) The criminal writ petitions are
allowed to above extent and same stand disposed
of.
. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this
judgment.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.S. SHINDE,J.]
snk/2017/AUG17/crwp601.16
