Bombay High Court
Mohd. Muzammil Raghib S/O. Mohd. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 24 March, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl.36.17.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.36 OF 2017
Mohd. Muzammil Raghib s/o Mohd. Ajmal Raghib,
Age 26 years, Occ. : Private,
R/o. Bhaji Mandi, Kamptee, District Nagpur. ..... Applicant
--- Versus --
1] State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., P.S. Juni Kamptee,
Nagpur.
2] Shabanam Qureshi d/o Haji Vahab Qureshi,
Age 27 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Bhaji Mandi Qureshi Nagar,
Near Chodharik Masjid, Kamptee,
District Nagpur. ..... Non-Applicants
--------------------
Ms. Rohini Khapekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1.
Shri A.I. Nayak, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.
-------------------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
02] By way of present application, the applicant has
approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting
aside the first information report arising out of the complaint
lodged by non-applicant No.2 against him vide Crime
No.210/2016 with the Police Station Juni Kamptee, Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
03] Upon perusal of the first information report would
reveal that the report is lodged by non-applicant no.2 stating
therein that she was married to one Nazir Ahmed Qureshi in the
year 2006 and one son is also begotten from their relationship.
In the year 2013, she was divorced by said Nazir Ahmed Qureshi
and since then, she along with his son is residing at Kamptee.
It is further stated in the F.I.R. that in the month of
November, 2014, when the first informant had gone to a mobile
shop for recharging her mobile, the applicant, who was present
at the mobile shop, had noted her mobile number and after she
leaving the mobile shop, he made a phone call on her mobile
and expressed his interest in her. It is further stated in the
report that despite of the first informant informed that she is a
divorcée, the applicant insisted her and still shown his interest in
her. It is also stated that the relationship was developed between
them and thereafter they used to meet each other in an empty
house of the father of the applicant. It is further stated that in
the month of November, 2015, on the false pretext that
applicant would marry her, the applicant forced the first
informant to have a physical relationship with her and thereafter
he developed physical relations with her. However, after 16 th
September, 2016, the applicant stopped contacting the first
informant.
04] However, it appears that after lodging of the F.I.R.,
matter has been amicably settled. The parties have married to
each other and are residing together. A copy of "Nikah Nama"
as well as the photograph of the marriage are placed on record.
05] The applicant as well as non-applicant no.2 are
personally present in the Court. They reiterate that the matter
has been amicably settled between them and they are residing
together.
06] The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others
vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC
675 has held that if the matrimonial dispute has been settled
between the parties, this Court can exercise powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and give an
end to the criminal proceedings.
07] In that view of the matter, we find that continuation of
the criminal proceedings would unnecessary come in the way of
peaceful married life of the parties. We, therefore, are of the
opinion that the present case is a fit case where this Court can
exercise powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and give an end to the criminal proceedings. Hence, the
application deserves to be allowed.
08] The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (1).
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J)
*sdw
