Mr. Tejindersingh S/O. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9004 Bom

                                 1                        apl298.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.298 OF 2017



  1. Mr.Tejindersingh s/o. Guruvachansingh
      Sehmi, Aged about 33 years, Occ.
      Business.
  2. Mrs. Ranjit Kaur w/o. Guruvachansingh
      Sehmi,
  3. Mr.Guruvachansingh Sehmi,
      Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business.

      All r/o. Plot No.37, Gurunanakpura,
      Near Gurudwara, Pachpaoli,
      Nagpur.                           ..........      APPLICANT


          // VERSUS //


  1. State of Maharashtra,
      through Police Station Officer,
      Pachpaoli Police Station,
      Nagpur City, Nagpur.
  2. (Mrs.Satvinderkaur w/o.
      Tejindersingh Sahemi) Deleted.     ..........     RESPONDENTS



::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:27:48 :::
                                      2                           apl298.17.odt

  ____________________________________________________________  
                   Mr.S.D.Deoras, Advocate for the Applicants.
          Mrs.M.H.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
  ____________________________________________________________

                               *******
  Date of reserving the Judgment               :  20.11.2017.
  Date of pronouncement of the Judgment :  23.11.2017.
                                *******

                                            CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                         AND
                                                         M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed

to quash the First Information Report No.477 of 2008, dt.22.12.2008

and to quash the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.743 of

2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.

3. It is submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2

were legally wedded husband and wife. After the marriage,

respondent no.2 gave birth to two children namely Ku.Gurleen Kaur

3 apl298.17.odt

and Harshdeep Singh. There was no dispute between applicant no.1

and his wife/respondent no.2 till the year 2008. Due to some

misunderstanding, respondent no.2 lodged report vide F.I.R. No.477

of 2008 at Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur. Charge sheet came to

be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur vide

Regular Criminal Case No.743 of 2009.

4. It is submitted that there was a family meeting. The

dispute was settled in the said meeting. Respondent no.2 joined the

company of applicant no.1 at her matrimonial home and since then

she was residing with applicant happily. In the meeting, respondent

no.2 fairly had admitted in presence of her parents that, due to

annoyance, she had lodged report against the applicants. Since

applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are residing happily with their

children, it is prayed to quash the F.I.R. and charge sheet.

5. During pendency of the petition, respondent no.2 died.

Respondent no.1 has filed reply. In para no.2, respondent no.1 has

submitted that respondent no.2 was residing with the applicants

since the year 2010 along with their children. In the year 2017, the

respondent no.2 was ill. During medical treatment, she died.

4 apl298.17.odt

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

Perused the reply filed by respondent no.1 and statements recorded

by PSI Ingle. From the perusal of the statements, it is clear that

respondent no.2 was residing with applicant no.1 after lodging

report. There was settlement between applicant no.1 and respondent

no.2. In the year 2017, she was sick. She was admitted in Lata

Mangeshkar Hospital, Nagpur. She died on 20.5.2017.

7. As per the submission of applicants and reply filed by

respondent no.1 and the statements on record, it is clear that

respondent no.2 lodged the report due to misunderstanding. After

lodging report, she started residing with the applicants. During

pendency of the proceedings, she died in Lata Mangeshkar hospital,

Nagpur. There is no possibility of any conviction. In such

circumstances, pendency of criminal case will be nothing but abuse

of process of Court. Hence, we pass the following order :

                                  5                                apl298.17.odt

                                 // ORDER //

The application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (a) of the Criminal Application.

The F.I.R. In Crime No.477 of 2008 and the

proceedings in Regular Criminal case No.743 of 2009 are

hereby quashed and set aside.

No order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                          JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                6               apl298.17.odt