Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O. Jyotish Sharma And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 3 March, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl.899.16.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.899 OF 2016
1] Rajesh s/o Jyotish Sharma
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Bandhu Nagar, Nagpur.
2] Jyotish s/o Gaurishankar Sharma,
Aged about 65 years.
3] Hirabai w/o Jyotish Sharma,
Aged about 60 years.
Both Nos.2 and 3 are resident of
Sillewada, Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur.
4] Mamta Umesh Sharma,
Aged about 35 years.
5] Umesh s/o Ashpujan Sharma,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
Both Nos. 4 & 5 are resident of
Wadi, Nagpur, Tah. & District Nagpur .... Applicants
--- Versus --
1] State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur.
2] Shobhita w/o Rajesh Sharma,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Advocate,
R/o Plot No.21, Bandhu Nagar,
Zingabai Takli,
Near Hans Krupa High School, Nagpur. ..... Non-Applicants
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 00:41:51 :::
apl.899.16.jud.doc 2
--------------------
Shri I.S. Charlewar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1.
-------------------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 3, 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] The applicants have approached this Court with a
prayer for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. and charge-sheet
arising out of the complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2
against them vide Crime No.103/2016 with Police Station
Sakkardara, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
03] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant No.2 are husband
and wife and they are blessed with two daughters. It appears
that there arose some matrimonial disputes between applicant
no.1 and non-applicant no.2 and as such the aforesaid F.I.R.
came to be lodged making allegation that applicant no.1 and
rest of the applicants, who are related to applicant no.1, are
harassing her for not meeting the demand of dowry.
04] From the perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of non-
applicant no.2, it could be seen that the matter has been
amicably settled between the applicants and non-applicant no.2
and non-applicant no.2 does not wish to prosecute the present
proceedings.
05] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant No.2 are personally
present in the Court. They are identified by the learned Counsel
for the applicants. They reiterate that the matter has been
amicably settled between them taking into consideration the
welfare of their daughters. The non-applicant No.2 states that
she is not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution
against the applicants. It is also informed that they are now
residing together and leading the peaceful life.
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 the present
case is a fit case where this Court should exercise powers under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and give an end to
the criminal proceedings. Hence, the application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J)
*sdw
