Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O. Mohanrao Laxane vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 APL452.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APL) No. 452/2017
Applicant : Sunil S/o Mohanrao Laxane,
Aged about 45 years, Occ.: Teacher,
R/o Plot No. 129, Ramsumer Nagar,
Kawala Peth, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur
Versus
Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra, through
P.S.O, P.S Lakadganj, Nagpur
2. Smt. Sanjeevani D/o Shalikramji
Ghumne W/o Sunil Laxane
Aged about 36 years, Occ: Household,
R/o 58, Sheshnagar, Kharabi road,
Nagpur, Tah. And Distt. Nagpur
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.D. Hazarey, Advocate for the applicant
Smt Neerja B. Mahatme, Advocate for the respondent no. 2
Shri A. M. Deshpande, A.P.P for the State/respondent no. 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : P.B.Varale and
M.G.Giratkar, JJ.
DATE : 03/08/201
.
Judgment : ( Per Murlidhar G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2 APL452.2017
2. By this application, the applicant has challenged the
First Information Report lodged by the respondent no. 2.
3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 is the wife of
the applicant. Marriage between the applicant and the respondent
no. 2 was solemnized on 07/07/2003. They cohabited for about 11
years. They are having two sons, namely, Pranav and Shreyas.
Thereafter, there was a marital discord between husband and wife.
In a heat of moment, respondent no. 2/wife lodged the F.I.R with
respondent no. 1. On her report, crime was registered for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. It is submitted that the applicant and respondent no. 2
have settled their dispute outside the Court. Respondent no. 2 and the
applicant agreed to withdraw all the cases against each other.
5. In view of the settlement, applicant prayed to quash
and set aside the charge-sheet filed by the respondent no. 1. Notice
was issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 2 filed her affidavit
stating that they have settled their dispute. Respondent no. 2 does not
wish to press the allegations/averments made in the F.I.R dated
3 APL452.2017
04/12/2014. They have mutually settled their dispute outside the
Court. It is further agreed by and between the parties inter-se that
they shall not file or initiate any new case, whether civil or criminal,
against each other in respect of alleged commission of the offences in
question nor shall they prosecute any such case if already filed. She
has further stated in her affidavit that this Court is requested to quash
and set aside the F.I.R dated 04/12/2014 and charge-sheet dated
17/03/2015 bearing no. 45/2015 and Regular Criminal Case
No. 1610/2015 pending before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Court No. 3, Nagpur.
6. Applicant and the respondent no. 2 are present before
this Court. Respondent no. 2 has stated before us that they have
settled their dispute outside the Court. She does not want to
prosecute the applicant. Offences punishable under sections 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.
7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, matrimonial dispute can be settled by this Court.
F.I.R./Charge-sheet which is the outcome of matrimonial dispute can
be quashed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.
4 APL452.2017
8. As per the submissions of the applicant and
respondent no. 2, they have settled their dispute outside the Court.
Looking to their submissions and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
Haryana reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, we allow the petition in
terms of prayer clause no. i (a), i(b), i(c) and i(d).
JUDGE JUDGE
A.P. Ansari
