Nitin Madanlal Jain And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6157 Bom

                                    * 1/4 *       33-APL-862-2017.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.862 OF 2017 


Nitin Madanlal Jain & Ors.                           ....Applicants
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                      ....Respondents 


Mr. Vinit Jain with Mr. S.D.Savekar i/by Mr. S.M.Jain, Advocates for 
Applicants.
Mrs. S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Khush I. Khandelwal i/by Khandelwal Associates, Advocate for 
Respondent No.2.

                                       ******

                            CORAM :-   R.M. SAVANT & 
                                                SANDEEP K.  SHINDE, JJ.

                            DATE     :- 16TH AUGUST,   2017.


P.C. :-

The above criminal application has been filed for

quashing of the FIR No.80 of 2017 registered with the Kalachowky

Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section

498A, 406, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The FIR has

arisen out of matrimonial disputes between the petitioner no.1 and

the respondent no.2 herein, i.e, the wife. The parties have settled

the disputes. As a result of which the respondent no.2 has filed an

affidavit which is annexed to the above application at Exhibit 'B'. In Shivgan

* 2/4 * 33-APL-862-2017.doc

the context of the reliefs sought in the present application,

paragraphs 4,6 and 11 are material which are re-produced

hereunder for the sake of ready reference:

"4 I say that after filing, the aforesaid case and registration of the above crime, some of our common relatives and friends made understand both the parties to settle our disputes amicably out of court. Thereafter, the disputes between me and the above named Applicants have been amicably settled, out of Court with the intervention of our common relatives, friends and well- wishers. Thereafter, I have withdrawn the above complaint no.67 of 2017 against the above named Applicants.

6 I say that, as per the compromised which has taken place between us, the further investigation or prosecution against the Applicants is meaningless and would cause the harassment, greater hardship and inconvenience to the Applicants;

11 In the circumstance afore-stated, I say and submit that I have no objection of any nature whatsoever if the application is allowed and the impugned order against the applicants is quashed. In the aforesaid circumstances, I further submit that it is also in the interest of justice and fair-play that applicants should no longer be prosecuted and the impugned order against applicants be quashed."

Shivgan

* 3/4 * 33-APL-862-2017.doc

2 The said affidavit is running into 12 paragraphs and the

said affidavit comprises of the averments in respect of various

arrangements made between the couple, i.e., the petitioner no.1 and

respondent no.2. In the context of the reliefs sought in the present

application, it is not necessary to refer to the affidavit in detail. The

said affidavit, therefore, discloses that the parties have amicably

resolved their disputes. The respondent no.2, i.e., the first informant

is personally present in the Court. She is identified by the learned

counsel Mr. Khush Khandelwal. She is also identified by her Adhar

Card bearing no.4977 8395 1376. When put in the box and

querried, she states that she has read and understood the said

affidavit dated 5.8.2017 registered before the Notary Public Mr.

Pramod Kumar bearing notarial registration no.47 dated 5.8.2017.

She further states that signature on the said affidavit is hers and that

she accepts the contents of the affidavit and settlement arrived at

between the parties. The applicant no.1 is also personally present in

the Court and he is identified by Mr. Suresh M. Jain. He is also

identified by his Adhar Card No.8353 9967 1001. He states that he

has read the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 and the

settlement mentioned therein is acceptable to him.

                                                                                 Shivgan



                                          * 4/4 *      33-APL-862-2017.doc

3                In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the 

case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC

466, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings though the

offences alleged are non-compoundable. Dictum of the Supreme

Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC

303 would also lead to the same conclusion. No useful purpose

would therefore be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

Hence, the above criminal application is allowed and made absolute

in terms of prayer clause (b) and is accordingly disposed of.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)                                              (R.M. SAVANT, J)

                                      




                                                                                   Shivgan