Manish S/O. Vasantrao Ekunkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6736 Bom

APL  531/17                                           1                          Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 531/2017
1.    Manish S/o Vasantrao Ekunkar,
      Aged about 35 years, Occupation: Business.
2.    Padmabai W/o Vasantrao Ekunkar,
      Aged about 50 years, Occupation: Household.
3.    Mahendra Vasantrao Ekunkar,
      Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Business.
All R/o New Diamond Nagar, Police Station
Nandanvan, Nagpur.                                                           APPLICANTS
                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur.
2.    Sau.Pooja Manish Ekunkar,
      Aged about 22 years, Occupation: Household,
      R/o C/o Godawari Layout, Plot No.112,
      Butibori, Nagpur.                                                   NON-APPLICA
                                                                                      NTS
                    Shri N.V. Pradnyakar, Counsel for the applicants.
         Shri K.R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.

                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.                

DATE : 04 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

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 seek the quashing

and setting aside of the first information report registered against the

applicants and the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.4203 of

2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section

34 of the Penal Code.

APL 531/17 2 Judgment

3. The applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 were married

at Nagpur on 21.04.2014 and the non-applicant no.2 started residing in

her matrimonial home at Nagpur since then. It appears that the applicant

no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 could not live in harmony and there used

to be quarrels over petty and trifle matters. Since the family life of the

non-applicant no.2 was disturbed due to the disharmony in the

matrimony, the non-applicant no.2 left the matrimonial house on

03.09.2014 and lodged a report in the police station. On the basis of the

report lodged by the non-applicant no.2, the first information report was

registered against the applicants, viz. the husband, the mother-in-law and

the father-in-law of the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The trial

has commenced after the charge-sheet was filed and the applicants have

sought for the quashing and setting aside of the first information report

and the proceedings arising therefrom, as during the pendency of the

trial, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the

compromise pursis is submitted by the applicant no.1 and the non-

applicant no.2 before the Family Court.

4. All the applicants and the non-applicant no.2 are personally

present in the Court, today. The counsel for the applicants has identified

the applicants as well as the non-applicant no.2. We have asked the

APL 531/17 3 Judgment

applicants and the non-applicant no.2 whether they have really

compromised the matter between them and whether the marriage

solemnized between the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 is

sought to be dissolved on the terms mentioned in the compromise pursis

filed before the Family Court. The applicants and the non-applicant no.2

have answered in the affirmative. The non-applicant no.2 states that she

does not want to proceed against the applicants in the trial that is

pending against them. It is stated that since the applicants and the non-

applicant no.2 have amicably resolved the disputes between them and

have further decided that they should withdraw the proceedings filed

against each other, the first information report registered against the

applicants may be quashed and set aside.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after being

satisfied with the answers to the queries made to the parties, we are of

the view that it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first

information report registered against the applicants. Though the

applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 were not on good terms and

there was disharmony in the matrimony, they have settled the disputes

and have filed a compromise pursis before the Family Court. Since the

non-applicant no.2 is not willing to proceed against the applicants in the

criminal case that is pending against them, it is unlikely that the

APL 531/17 4 Judgment

prosecution would result in the conviction of the applicants. If that be

so, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure

the ends of justice, it would be necessary to quash the first information

report registered against the applicants and the proceedings arising

therefrom. By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab, reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303, it would be necessary to quash the first information

report registered against the applicants, as the compromise between the

parties can itself be the consideration for quashing the first information

report.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is

allowed. The first information report registered against the applicants for

the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the

penal Code and the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.4203 of

2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.

Order accordingly.

              JUDGE                                        JUDGE
APTE