Bombay High Court
Ravindra Ambar Indis And Others vs Yogita Ravindra Indis And Anr on 5 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
cwp1309.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1309 OF 2017
1) Shri Ravindra Ambar Indis,
Age-27 years, Occu:Agriculture,
2) Shri Ambar Bhaga Indis,
Age-59 years, Occu:Agriculture,
3) Sau. Latabai Ambar Indis,
Age-53 years, Occu:Household,
4) Shri Vinod Ambar Indis,
Age-30 years, Occu:Advocate,
5) Shri Subhash Pundlik Indis,
Age-37 years, Occu:Labour,
6) Shri Gokul Bhaidas Indis,
Age-26 years, Occu:Agriculture,
All Residents of: At Village Indave,
Tq-Sakri, Dist-Dhule.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Sau. Yogita Ravindra Indis,
Age-20 years, Occu:Household,
Resident of: At Mohida,
Tq-Shahada, Dist-Nandurbar,
2) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Office In-charge,
Shahada Police Station,
Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar.
...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 01:23:27 :::
cwp1309.17
2
...
Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mr. Amol S. Sawant Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. A.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :
1. Pursuant to the notices issued to the
Respondents, Mr. Amol S. Sawant, learned counsel
appears for Respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. has
caused appearance for Respondent No.2. Mr. Sawant,
learned counsel has tendered across the Bar
affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent No.1.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Applicant Nos.1 and 4 and also Respondent
cwp1309.17
No.1 are present in the Court Hall and they are
identified by their respective counsel. On
specific interaction with Respondent No.1, she
stated that compromise has been arrived between
the Applicants and herself with the intervention
of elderly persons. Applicant No.1 and Respondent
No.1 have already instituted the proceedings for
divorce by mutual consent. Applicant No.1 agreed
to pay Rs.70,000/-. Accordingly, Rs.35,000/- have
been paid by cheque and it is agreed that
remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- will be given to
Respondent No.1 at the time of conclusion of the
proceedings of H.M.P. No.44 of 2017.
4. Since the parties have arrived at
compromise/settlement and already Applicant No.1
and Respondent No.1 have instituted the
proceedings of H.M.P. No.44 of 2017 for divorce
with mutual consent and also agreed for settlement
as averred in the reply of Respondent No.1, and
said compromise/ settlement is with free will and
without any coercion, therefore no fruitful
cwp1309.17
purpose would be served by further investigation
of First Information Report bearing Crime No.231
of 2017 registered with Shahada Police Station,
Dist-Nandurbar, and continuation of proceedings
arising out of said First Information Report.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another 1 has held
that, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
by accepting the settlement to secure ends of
justice and to avoid abuse of process of law.
6. As stated above, no fruitful purpose
would be served by continuing the further
investigation/proceedings arising out of Crime
No.231 of 2017 registered with Shahada Police
Station, Dist-Nandurbar, and it will amount to
abuse of process of law/Court and exercise in
futility.
1 2012 (10) SCC Page 303
cwp1309.17
7. In that view of the matter, the Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in
terms of prayer clause "A". Writ Petition stands
disposed of, accordingly.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/OCT17
