Bombay High Court
Amit @ Chotu S/O. Govind Yadav And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 1 October, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 apl454.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.454 OF 2017
1. Amit @ Chotu s/o. Govind Yadav,
Aged about 29 years, Occ.
Private.
2. Deepak s/o. Govind Yadav,
Aged about 32 years, Occ.
Private.
3. Govind Yadav,
Aged about 58 years,
Occ. Private.
4. Sau. Santoshi w/o. Govind Yadav,
Aged about 51 years, Occ.
Household.
5. Sau. Shikha w/o. Deepak Yadav,
Aged about 31 years, Occ.
Household.
All r/o. Behind Sangh Building,
Mahal, Nagpur. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 00:13:14 :::
2 apl454.17.odt
1.The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Kotwali,
Nagpur.
2.Trupti w/o. Amit Yadav,
Aged about 28 years, Occ.Teacher,
r/o. C/o. Premlalji Yadav,
Plot No.1, Shri Krishna Nagar,
Wathoda Road, Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.S.T.Dhurvey, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.C.A.Lokhande, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.Subhash Meshram, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12.10.2017.
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 parties.
2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed
to quash and set aside First Information Report No.79 of 2016
lodged by respondent no.2. It is submitted that respondent no.2
3 apl454.17.odt
lodged report against the applicants in Police Station for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It
is submitted that, during pendency of the divorce proceedings before
the Family Court, Nagpur, the matter was settled between the
applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. As per the terms of Settlement,
respondent no.2 has received all the amounts/articles. Therefore, it
is prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report lodged
by respondent no.2.
3. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present before
the Court along with their respective Counsel i.e. Mr.S.T.Dhurvey,
learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.C.A.Lokhande, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State and
Mr.Subhash Meshram, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. We
have asked respondent no.2. She has stated that, as per the terms of
Settlement, dt.20.4.2017, they have settled their disputes. As per the
terms of Settlement, respondent no.2 has received all the
articles/amounts as per the Settlement. Therefore, she does not
want to prosecute all the applicants.
4 apl454.17.odt
4. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, matrimonial disputes once settled between the
parties can be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings pendent
between them. In the present case, respondent no.2/wife of
applicant no.1 has settled her dispute and has agreed to withdraw all
the cases against the applicants. In view of the settlement between
them, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the matter
pending. Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause
of the application and quash and set aside First Information Report
No.79 of 2016 lodged by respondent no.2 and proceedings pending
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8, Nagpur vide
Regular Criminal Case No.3488 of 2016.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
5 apl454.17.odt
