Bombay High Court
Ritesh S/O Nemchand Gupta And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 Cri.WP-1513-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2015
1. Ritesh S/o Nemchand Gupta
Age : 35 years, Occu. Business,
2. Gita Nemchand Gupta,
Age : years, Occu. Household,
3. Shri. Mukesh S/o Nemchand Gupta,
Age: years, Occu. Business,
4. Smt. Rani W/o Mukesh Gupta,
Age : years, Occu. Household,
All R/o Gondiya Bara,
Tq. And District Gondiya
5. Bhavana Jitendra Gupta,
Age : years, Occu. Business,
R/o :Khargaon, (Madhya Pradesh)
6. Jitendra Gupta,
Age : years, Occu. Business,
R/o :Khargaon, (Madhya Pradesh) ...PETITIONERS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Superintendent of Police,
Dhule, District Dhule.
2. The Police Inspector,
Pimpalner Police Station, Tq. Sakri,
District Dhule.
3. Sau. Roshani W/o Ritesh Gupta,
Age : 29, Occu. Household,
R/o Sakri, Tq. Sakri,
District. Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for Respondents No. 1 and 2
Mr. N.T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
...
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:16 :::
2 Cri.WP-1513-15
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATED : 3rd MAY, 2017.
JUDGMENT : ( Per: S.S. Shinde, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have
tendered across the bar compromise-terms between Petitioner
No. 1-husband and respondent No. 3-wife. The same is taken on
record. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 are present in the
Court Hall. They are identified by their respective counsel.
Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have admitted their
respective signatures and the contents of the compromise-terms.
3. We have interacted with petitioner No. 1-husband and
respondent No. 3-wife. They have stated that it is their voluntary
act to enter into such compromise-terms. Respondent No. 3 has
no objection to quash the proceedings bearing RCC No. 220 of
2013 pursuant to first information report Crime No. 37 of 2013
registered at Pimpalner Police Station, Ta. Sakri, District Dhule
for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506 of the
IPC.
3 Cri.WP-1513-15
4. We have carefully perused the terms of compromise. It
appears that petitioner No.1-husband and respondent No. 3-wife
are separated since 15-11-2014 by virtue of decree of divorce. In
that view of matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing the proceedings bearing RCC No. 220 of 2013 based
upon the Crime No. 37 of 2013 registered at Pimpalner Police
Station, Ta. Sakri, District Dhule for the offence punishable under
sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC.
5. Considering the compromise-terms between the parties and
keeping in view the exposition of law of the Supreme Court in the
case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303, continuation of further proceeding based
upon crime would be abuse of process of law and wastage of time
of the prosecution agency and the Court. In that view of the
matter, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition. Accordingly
we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause "C". Rule is made
absolute in above terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
