Rahul S/O Ratnakar Jain (Watpade) vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2121 Bom

                                                                CR.APPN./5814/2016
                                          1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5814 OF 2016

 1. Rahul Ratnakar Jain (Watpade),
 Age 32 years, Occ. Temporary Private
 Employment, Residing at Chikalthana,
 Besides Sachin Medical, Aurangabad.

 2. Ratnakar Baburao Jain (Watpade),
 Age 59 years, Occupation Nil,
 Residing at N-9, M-2, 121/3,
 Near Jain Temple, Cidco, Aurangabad.

 3. Chalnabai Ratnakar Jain (Watpade),
 Age 55 years, Occupation Household,
 Residing as above.

 4. Mrs. Rupali Jaydeep Purwat,
 Age 35 years, Occupation Household
 Residing at above address and presently
 staying at Pune at her matrimonial home.                    ..Applicants

 Versus

 1. The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Commissioner of Police,
 Aurangabad.

 2. The Police Station Officer,
 Cidco N-7, Police Station,
 Aurangabad.

 3. Naina Rahul Vatpade Jain,
 Age 27 years, Occ. Household,
 Residing at Ravindra Ramchandra
 Rudhraksh, at Routwadi, Chikhli,
 Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.                                ..Respondents

                                        ...
                    Advocate for Applicants : Shri Surve Hemant
                    APP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Salgare S.J.
                    Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri Dube N.P.
                                        ...
                    CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

Dated: May 02, 2017 ...

CR.APPN./5814/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT:-(PER S.S.SHINDE,J.):-

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

application is taken up for final disposal.

4. Applicant No.1 and respondent No3, through mediation process,

arrived at amicable settlement and to that effect, terms of settlement

were finalized before the Mediator Applicant No.1 and respondent No3.

have verified those terms of settlement before the learned Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court. The parties are identified by the learned

Advocates appearing for the applicants and respondent No.3.

5. It is stated in the said terms of compromise that applicant No.1

as well as respondent No.3 would make a joint application for grant of

divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel for applicants and

respondent No.2 informs this Court that the Family Court has fixed the

matter so as to record the statements of applicant No.1 and respondent

No.3. There are other terms in the said compromise terms. The terms

of compromise, which are placed on record, will be treated as part of

the record of the present application. We need not to reiterate the

same in our order.

CR.APPN./5814/2016

6. Suffice it to say that we have inter acted with respondent No.3

and she has stated that it is her voluntary act with free will to enter

into a settlement / compromise and verify the terms of compromise.

Applicant No.1 also states that he will abide by the terms of

compromise.

7. In that view of the matter and in view of the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], in order to prevent the abuse

of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, we are inclined to

allow this application.

8. Hence the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms

of prayer clause (B).

            ( K. K. SONAWANE, J. )               ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
                                     ...




 akl/d