Bombay High Court
Gangadhan S/O Sambhaji Jakre And ... vs Shobha Gangadhar Jakare And Anr on 22 March, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
6769.2015 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6769 OF 2015
1. Gangadhar s/o.Sambhaji Jakare,
Age 30 Years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. MHAD Colony, Old Kawtha Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
2. Sambhaji s/o. Baba Jakare,
Age 65 Years, Occu. and
R/o. Hingni, Tq. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded.
3. Radhabai w/o. Sambhaji Jakare,
Age 60 Years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
4. Vitthal s/o. Sambhaji Jakare,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service
As Forest Labour,
R/o. Line Lane Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
5. Shobha w/o. Vitthal Jakare,
Age 40 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
6. Devidas s/o. Sambhaji Jakare,
Age 42 years, Occu. and
R/o. Hingni, Tq. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded.
7. Pushpa w/o. Devidas Jakare,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
8. Aanand s/o. Sambhaji Jakare,
Age 39 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Deshpande Lane Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 00:39:21 :::
6769.2015 Cri.Appln.odt
2
9. Renuka w/o Anand Jakare,
Age 34 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
10. Monika w/o. Vitthal Savarkar,
Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At Post Bahadarpura,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. APPLICANTS
[Orig.Accused]
VERSUS
1. Shobha Gangadhar Jakare,
Age 24 Occu. Housewife
R/o. At Kharola Tq.Renapur
Dist. Latur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through, Police Inspector,
Police Station Renapur,
Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.M.M.Parghane, Advocate for the applicants
Ms.P.V.Diggikar, APP for the Respondent/
State
Mr.T.M.Venjane, Advocate for respondent no.1.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
DATE: 22.03.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. On oral prayer made by the learned
6769.2015 Cri.Appln.odt
counsel appearing for the applicants that the
order dated 21st December, 2015, withdrawing
the Criminal Application to the extent of
applicant no.1, may be recalled, the said
order stands recalled. Criminal Application
is restored qua applicant no.1, and the same
is being considered.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. Heard with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.1
have filed joint compromise pursis. The said
joint compromise pursis is signed by
applicant no.1 and respondent no.1. The said
joint compromise pursis is taken on record.
5. Upon careful perusal of the contents
of the joint compromise pursis, respondent
no.1 has no any grievance against applicant
no.1, and his relatives, who are also
applicants in this Application.
6769.2015 Cri.Appln.odt
6. It appears that applicant no.1
Gangadhar Sambhaji Jakare has filed HMP
No.82/2014, with a prayer to seek divorce and
dissolution of marriage with respondent no.1.
Applicant no.1 has already paid amount of
Rs.1,75,000/- [Rs.One Lac Seventy-five
thousand only] to respondent no.1, on 31st
December, 2016.
7. Respondent no.1 is present in the
Court hall. On interacting with her, she
stated that it is her voluntary act, without
any coercion to enter into compromise, and
joint compromise pursis are duly signed by
her.
8. In that view of the matter, no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping
further proceedings, arising out of the FIR
bearing Crime No.131/2015 registered with
Renapur Police Station, Renapur, for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323,
6769.2015 Cri.Appln.odt
504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code
pending, since respondent no.1 is not going
to support the allegations in the FIR.
Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of
law by the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another1 so
as to prevent abuse of process of law, we are
inclined to allow this application.
9. Rule is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause-B. Criminal Application is
allowed on above terms, and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
1 2012 AIR SCW 5333
