Kailash S/O Venkat Aghav And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8467 Bom

                                 1         Cri.Appln.6233-15 Jud.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6233 OF 2015

     1.      Kailash Venkat Aghav,
             Age 30 years, Occu. Service,
             R/o Panchashil Nagar, Parli Vaijnath,
             Dist. Beed Presently
             At Nagpur, Tq. & District Nagpur.

     2.      Venkat Maruti Aghav,
             Age 52 years, Occu. Agri. & Business,
             R/o Panchashil Nagar, Parli Vaijnath,
             District Beed.

     3.      Rukminbai Venkat Aghav,
             Age 46 years, Occu. Housewife,
             R/o Panchashil Nagar, Parli Vaijnath,
             District Beed.

     4.      Deepali Siddheshwar Munde,
             Age 24 years, Occu. Housewife,
             R/o Kalambwadi, Tq. Barshi,
             District Solapur.

     5.      Vaishali Kailash Holambe,
             Age 27 years, Occu. Housewife,
             R/o Maindwadi, Tq. Parli Vaijnath,
             District Beed.

     6.      Jayashri Venkat Aghav,
             Age 19 years, Occu. Education,
             R/o Panchashil Nagar, Parli Vaijnath,
             District Beed Presently
             At Nagpur, Tq. & District Nagpur. ...  Applicants

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra 
             Through Police Inspector




::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:47:23 :::
                                              2              Cri.Appln.6233-15 Jud.odt

             Parli City Police Station,
             Parli Vaijnath, District Beed.

     2.      Sharda Kailash Aghav,
             Age 27 years, Occu. Household,
             R/o Jalalpur, Mathuranagar,
             Parli Vaijnath, Tq. Parli Vaijnath,
             District Beed.                      ...  Respondents

                                 ...
     Mr. P.P.Kothari h/f Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for Applicant 
     Nos.1 to 6 
     Mrs. P.V.Diggikar, APP for Respondent No.1-State
     Mr. H.F.Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                 ...

                               CORAM :  S.S.SHINDE AND
                                        MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : 6th November, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S.Shinde, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This application is filed with following prayer :

"Prayer Clause C :- The First Information Report No.200/2015 dated 08.09.2015 registered at Parli City Police Station against the Applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside."

3. Pursuant to notices issued to the respondents,

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has

3 Cri.Appln.6233-15 Jud.odt

tendered across the bar affidavit of compromise. Same

is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and

Respondent No.2, relying upon the averments in the

affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, submits that parties

have settled the dispute as a result of mediation

process. Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have

decided to initiate the divorce proceeding with mutual

consent. Accordingly, Hindu Marriage Petition No.49 of

2017 (Kailas Venkatrao Aghav Vs. Sharda Kailas Aghav)

is filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Ambejogai. The terms of compromise are already

incorporated in the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court Hall. On

specific inquiry to her, she has stated that the

settlement / compromise took place between the

Applicants and Respondent No.2 is without any coercion

and with her free will and therefore, the First

Information Report may be quashed.

5. Keeping in view the observations of the Supreme

4 Cri.Appln.6233-15 Jud.odt

Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC page 303

that in order to secure ends of justice or to prevent the

abuse of process of Law, the settlement / compromise, if

it is voluntary act of the parties and if the informant

does not want to further continue with such allegations

in the FIR, the FIR can be quashed so as to prevent the

abuse of process of Law.

6. In the light of above, the application is allowed in

terms of prayer clause 'C'. Rule made absolute in the

above terms. Application stands disposed off.

7. It is needless to observe that Respondent No.2 can

apply before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Ambejogai for withdrawal of the amount deposited

pursuant to the settlement / compromise between the

parties and the concerned Court to consider the said

prayer suitably.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) ...

vmk/-