Bombay High Court
Ranjan S/O Prakash Chapke And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 6 March, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl.625.16.jud.doc 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.625 OF 2016
1] Ranjan s/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 28 years, Occu. Service.
2] Prakash s/o Jangluji Chapke,
Aged about 54 years, Occu. Business.
3] Sau. Kantabai w/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. Household.
4] Nilesh s/o Prakash Chapke,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. Business.
All r/o Plot No.58, Vitthalwadi,
Renuka Mata Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur ..... Applicants
--- Versus --
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. of Police Station,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur City.
2] Sau. Pallavi w/o Ranjan Chapke,
Aged about 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Plot No.58, Vitthalwadi,
Renuka Mata Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur. ..... Non-Applicants
--------------------
Shri E.W. Nawab, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1.
Shri M.S. Rehman, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.2.
-------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2017 01:01:54 :::
apl.625.16.jud.doc 2
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 6, 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. arising out of the
complaint lodged by non-applicant No.2 against them vide Crime
No.118/2016 with the Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 354-A, 498-A, 328 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 were married to
each other on 28/05/2015. It appears that in the month of
March, 2016, there arose some matrimonial disputes between
applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2. As a result of which, false
first information report came to be lodged by non-applicant no.2-
wife against applicant no.1-husband and his relatives.
04] It appears that during pendency of the proceedings,
the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and
they have decided to reside together.
05] Applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 are personally
present in the Court. They are identified by their respective
Counsel. They reiterate that the matter has been amicably
settled between them. Non-applicant no.2 states that she is not
interested in continuing the criminal proceedings against the
applicants. It is also informed that the applicant and non-
applicant no.2 are now 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 the present case, since the matter is amicably
settled and the parties are reunited and residing together, in our
considered view, pendency of the criminal case would
unnecessary come in the way of their peaceful cohabitation.
08] In that view of the matter, we find 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.
09] Hence, the application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J)
*sdw
