Ajitkumar Haribhau More And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra. And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9742 Bom

                                     1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 641 OF 2017

Ajitkumar s/o Haribhau More
and ors.                                            .. Petitioners

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr.                   .. Respondents

Mr A.V. Aghav, Advocate for petitioners Mr M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent no.1 Mrs S.M. Zawre, Advocate for respondent no.2

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

DATE : 18.12.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. Respondent no.2 is present. She stated that she had already

requested to earlier Advocate Mrs N.S. Choudhary to withdraw her

appearance and thereafter engaged Advocate. In that view of the

matter, appearance of Advocate Mrs N.S. Choudhary is discharged.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent

no.2 submit that parties have compromised the matter before the

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The respondent no.2 has

filed affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of the

compromise deed, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 filed the

petition for divorce by consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Ahmednagar and the said proceedings i.e. Hindu Marriage Petition

No.260/2017 (Ajitkumar Haribhau More Vs. Shital Ajitkumar More) has

been disposed of and, therefore, the proceedings of R.C.C. No.98/2016

(State Vs. Ajitkumar) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Rahuri arising out of C.R. No.429/2015 under Sections 498-

A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

4. Respondent no.2 is present before the Court. She stated that

she voluntarily filed such affidavit and prays for quashing the

proceedings of R.C.C.No.98/2016.

5. Keeping in view decision of Supreme Court in Gian Sing Vs.

State of Hariyana, so as to secure ends of justice and further abuse of

process of Court, the petition deserves to be allowed thereby

quashing pending proceedings bearing R.C.C.No.98/2016. No fruitful

purpose will be served by keeping those proceedings pending, since

respondent no.2 is not going to support the allegations and chances of

conviction would be bleak.

6. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition stands allowed in terms

of prayer clause (B).

7. Rule made absolute in above terms.

      ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                    ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)



vvr