Bombay High Court
Sunil Onkarmal Tayde And Another vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 14 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
APLs 504&505/17 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 504/2017
1. Rajkumar Omkar Tayde,
Aged 35 Years, Occu. Doctor,
R/o Pimpalgaon Kale, Tq. Jalgaon
Jamod, Distt. Buldana.
2. Rajeshkumar Atmaram Bavaskar,
Aged 43 Years, Occup. Service.
3. Sau.Sunita Rajeshkumar Bavaskar,
Aged 37 Years, Occu. Household,
No.2 & 3 R/o Saarni, Tq. Ghoradongari,
Distt. Baitul (M.P.).
4. Pramod Narayan Sawaldekar,
Aged 44 Years, Occu. Service.
5. Sau.Vaishali Pramod Sawaldekar,
Aged 30 Years, Occu. Household,
No.4 & 5 R/o Sindhipura,
Sonarpatti, Burhanpur (MP).
6. Ravikant Haribhau Bavaskar,
Aged 31 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o C/o Ramesh Bavaskar,
Krushna Nagar, Tq. Jalgaon Jamod,
Distt. Buldana.
7. Sunil Onkarmal Tayde,
Aged 32 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o Marthahalli, Banglore, Karnataka.
8. Omkarrao Bhikaji Tayde,
Aged 65 Years, Occu. Nil.
9. Sau.Kamal Omkarrao Tayde,
Aged 62 Years, Occu. Household.
Both R/o Pimpalgaon Kale,
Tq. Jalgaon Jamod, Distt. Buldana. APPLICANTS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.,
Police Station Jalgaon Jamod,
Tq. Jalgaon Jamod, Distt. Buldana.
2. Sau.Harsha Rajkumar Tayde,
Aged 24 Years, Occu-Household,
R/o C/o Babanrao Krushnaji Raulkar,
Alipura, Tq. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha. NON-APPLICA
NTS
Shri D.M. Upadhye, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri P.S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
Shri D. Dapurkar, counsel for the non-applicant no.2.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 01:58:34 :::
APLs 504&505/17 2 Judgment
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 505/2017
1. Sunil Onkarmal Tayde,
Aged 32 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o Marthahalli, Banglore, Karnataka.
2. Omkarrao Bhikaji Tayde,
Aged 65 Years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Pimpalgaon Kale,
Tq. Jalgaon (Jamod), Distt. Buldana. APPLICANTS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.,
Police Station Frejarpura, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
2. Sau.Harsha Rajkumar Tayde,
Aged 30 Years, Occu-Household,
R/o C/o Babanrao Krushnaji Raulkar,
Alipura, Tq. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha. NON-APPLICA
NTS
Shri D.M. Upadhye, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri K.R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
Shri D. Dapurkar, counsel for the non-applicant no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 14 TH AUGUST, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Since the parties to these criminal applications are the same
and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are
decided by this common judgment.
2. The criminal applications are ADMITTED and finally decided
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The non-applicant no.2 in both the criminal applications is
the legally wedded wife of Rajkumar, the applicant no.1 in APL No.504 of
APLs 504&505/17 3 Judgment
2017. The marriage of the non-applicant no.2 and the applicant no.1 in
APL No.504 of 2017, was solemnized on 17.06.2010. The non-applicant
no.2 had left the matrimonial home on a couple of occasions to reside
with her parents in her parental home. According to the applicants, since
on 23.02.2012, the relatives of the non-applicant no.2 had abused the
applicant no.1 in APL No.504 of 2017 and some other applicants, a
complaint in that regard was lodged at Police Station Jalgaon Jamod on
23.02.2012. It is stated that since the applicant no.1 and the non-
applicant no.2 were not on good terms and could not reside happily in
the matrimony, both of them had filed complaints against each other in a
fit of anger. After the complaint was lodged by the the applicant no.1
against the non-applicant no.2, she also lodged a complaint against the
applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Certain civil and criminal
proceedings were initiated by the applicants and the non-applicant no.2
against each other. A complaint was also lodged by the non-applicant
no.2 against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections
307, 341 and 506 of the Penal Code on 29.05.2015.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants and the non-
applicant no.2 that the complaints were filed by them against each other
as at the relevant time, there were differences between them. It is stated
APLs 504&505/17 4 Judgment
that the non-applicant no.2 and the applicant no.1 have amicably settled
the matter out of Court and have filed a petition before the Family Court
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. It is stated that in the peculiar circumstances of the case,
when the parties are not desirous of proceeding against each other in the
matters that are filed by them, with a view to secure the ends of justice, it
would be necessary to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated vide
Criminal Case No.48 of 2012 arising out of Crime No.10 of 2012 and
Criminal Case S.T. No.204 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.194 of 2013.
The learned counsel for the applicants and the non-applicant no.2 have
relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and
Narinder Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab & Another, reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466. It is stated that by applying the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported decisions, it
would be necessary to quash the proceedings with a view to prevent the
abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.
5. The non-applicant no.2 is personally present in the Court,
today. We have asked the non-applicant no.2 whether she has settled the
dispute with the applicants and has consented for a divorce by mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The non-
APLs 504&505/17 5 Judgment
applicant no.2 has answered in the affirmative and has informed the
Court that since the parties have compromised the matter and have
decided to withdraw the cases filed against each other, she is not desirous
of participating in the proceedings initiated vide Criminal Case No.48 of
2012 and Criminal Case S.T. No.204 of 2015. It is stated that in the
peculiar circumstances of the case, an order quashing the proceedings in
Criminal Case No.48 of 2012 and Criminal Case S.T. No.204 of 2015
could be passed.
6. In the circumstances of the case and by applying the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab) and (2014) 6
SCC 466 (Narinder Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab & Another), it
would be necessary to quash and set aside the proceedings in the
criminal cases referred to hereinabove with a view to secure the ends
of justice. If the non-applicant no.2 is not desirous of participating in
the criminal cases that are pending against the applicants on the basis of
the complaints made by her, there is less likelihood of the trials resulting
in the conviction of the accused-applicants. With a view to secure the
ends of justice, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.48 of 2012 and Criminal Case S.T.
No.204 of 2015.
APLs 504&505/17 6 Judgment
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal applications are
allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.48 of 2012 arising out of
Crime No.10 of 2012 registered with Police Station Jalgaon (Jamod) and
Criminal Case S.T. No.204 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.194 of 2015
registered with Police Station Frejarpura, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
