Mr. Anil S/O. Shikandarrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5938 Bom

                                          1                                      jg.apl 532.17.odt

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

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 532 of 2017

(1) Mr. Anil S/o Shikandarrao Fodekar,
      aged about 32 years, occupation : labour, 
      R/o. Punjab Colony, Near Datey Mangal 
      Karyalaya, Wardha. 

(2) Mr. Santosh S/o. Dnyaneshwar Thorat,
      aged about 42 years, occupation : private, 
      R/o. Sai Krupa Apartment, Gajanan nagar, 
      Wardha. 

(3) Sau. Priya w/o Anil Fodekar
      aged about 31 years, occupation : household, 
      R/o. Punjab Colony, Near Datey Mangal 
      Karyalaya, Wardha.                                         .... Applicants

      //  Versus //

State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer, 
Police Station Wardha City, 
Wardha.                                                                .... Non-applicant

Shri R. R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicants 
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant 
                                                     
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                     DATE  : 14-08-2017.


JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal

application is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties.

.....2/-

2 jg.apl 532.17.odt

By the present application, the applicants prayed to quash

and set aside FIR No. 210/2014 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Regular Criminal Case No. 398/2014 instituted on the report of the

applicant no. 3.

It is submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 3 are husband

and wife. The applicant no. 2 is their family friend. The applicant no. 1

and applicant no. 3 are residing together as husband and wife. They

have a daughter aged about 4 years. They are residing happily as

husband and wife.

So far as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, his family consists

of his wife and two daughters. Elder daughter of the applicant no. 2 is

learning in 10th Standard and his younger daughter is studying in 2 nd

Standard.

The applicant no. 3 lodged the report vide FIR No. 210/2014

in the Police Station against the applicant nos. 1 and 2. On her report,

crime for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code is registered. It is alleged in the report that the

applicant no. 1 along with the applicant no. 3 reached to the house of the

applicant no. 2. The applicant no. 1 left his wife at the house of the

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 532.17.odt

applicant no. 2 and went for his work. It is alleged by the applicant no. 3

that the applicant no. 2 outraged her modesty.

After investigation, charge-sheet vide Criminal Case No.

398/2014 is filed before the trial Court. All the applicants wanted to

reside happily and pendency of criminal case was resulting into causing

frictions in relationship. The application was moved before the learned

Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha. Said application was opposed

by the prosecution on the ground that offence is not compoundable,

therefore, the application came to be rejected.

It is submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 3 are happily

residing, therefore, the applicant no. 3 do not want to prosecute the

applicant nos. 1 and 2. It is, therefore, prayed to quash the charge-sheet

vide Criminal Case No. 398/2014 pending before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Wardha.

Heard learned Advocate Shri Vyas for the applicants and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode for the non-applicant.

All the applicants are present before the Court. We have

specifically asked the applicant no. 3, the wife of applicant no. 1. She

has stated before us that she is residing with her husband, applicant no. 1

.....4/-

                                            4                                      jg.apl 532.17.odt

peacefully.     Due   to   misunderstanding,   report   was   lodged   against   the

applicant nos. 1 and 2. To keep good relations, she do not want to

prosecute the applicant nos. 1 and 2.

Without going into the allegations in the report, it appears

that report was lodged due to misunderstanding against both the

applicants. The applicant no. 1 is friend of the applicant no. 2. Looking

to the submissions of all the applicants, they have settled the matter and

residing happily with their respective family. The complainant who is the

wife of the applicant no. 1 has specifically stated before us that she is

residing with her husband happily. Due to misunderstanding, report was

lodged, hence in the interest of justice and in view of judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh [2013 ALL SCR 171], proceedings

instituted on the report of the applicant no. 3 is liable to be quashed and

set aside. Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause nos.

(1) and (2) and quash Regular Criminal Case No. 398/2014 (vide FIR

No.210/2014) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha.

The criminal application is disposed of in above terms with

no order as to costs.

                JUDGE                                                 JUDGE
wasnik


                                                                                           ...../-