Amol S/O. Ishwar Sonekar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6978 Bom

APL  517/17                                          1                           Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 517/2017
1.    Amol s/o Ishwar Sonekar,
      aged about 30 yrs. Occ. Private,
      R/o Post Chargaon, Tah. Warora, Dist. Chandrapur.
2.    Shri Ishwar s/o Anandrao Sonekar,
      aged about 65 years, Occ. Business,
      R/o Chargaon, Tah. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur.
3.    Sau.Vatsala Ishwar Sonekar,
      aged about 60 years, Occ. Business,
      R/o Chargaon, Tah. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur.
4.    Sau.Vasantika Arvind Dhavas,
      aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife,
      R/o Patwari Colony, Ganesh Nagar,
      Varora, Tah. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur.
5.    Shri Arvind Namdeo Dhavas,
      aged about 50 years, Occ. Job,
      R/o Patwari Colony, Ganesh Nagar,
      Varora, Tah. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur.
6.    Shubham s/o Arvind Dhavas,
      aged about 21 years, Occ. Teacher,
      R/o Patwari Colony, Ganesh Nagar,
      Varora, Tah. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur.
7.    Sau.Minakshi Gopal Bhusari,
      aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife,
      Mainar Quarter, Sundarnagar Colony,
      Taroda, Post.Punvat, Tah.Vani, Dist. Yavatmal.
8.    Gopal Bhayaji Bhusari,
      aged about 46 years, Occu. Job, 
      R/o Mainar Quarter, Sundarnagar Colony,
      Taroda, Post.Punvat, Tah.Vani, Dist. Yavatmal.
9.    Kishor Bhauro Pavade,
      aged about 44 years, Occ. Job,
      R/o Mainar Quarter, Sundarnagar Colony,
      Taroda, Post.Punvat, Tah.Vani, Dist. Yavatmal.                         APPLICANTS
                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Hinganghat, Dist.Wardha.
2.    Sau.Nilam w/o Amol Sonekar,
      aged about 23 years, Occ NIL,
      R/o c/o Vithhal Diwanji Pawade,
      New Yashwant Nagar, Master Colony,
      Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.                                           NON-APPLICA
                                                                                      NTS



 ::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017                                ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:54:16 :::
 APL  517/17                                           2                          Judgment

                     Shri U.R. Phasate, Counsel for the applicants.
           Ms T.Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
                  Shri Tejas Patil, counsel for the non-applicant no.2.


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

DATE : 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

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

The criminal application is ADMITTED and heard finally at

the stage of admission 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506

read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as also Regular Criminal Case

No.98 of 2006 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Hinganghat.

3. The applicant no.1 was married to the non-applicant no.2 on

27.05.2015. However, there were differences between the applicant no.1

and the non-applicant no.2 and they started residing separately since

19.07.2015. On 07.09.2015, the non-applicant no.2 lodged a report in

the police station against the applicants for the offences punishable under

APL 517/17 3 Judgment

Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Certain

matrimonial matter was also pending between the applicant no.1 and the

non-applicant no.2 before the Family Court. On the basis of the report

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

registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences. The matter

between the parties before the Family Court was, however, compromised

and the compromise pursis was filed before the Family Court at Nagpur

on 13.06.2017. As per the deed of compromise, the non-applicant no.2

has agreed to accept a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the applicant no.1

towards full and final settlement. The non-applicant no.2 has undertaken

to withdraw the proceedings filed by her against the applicants. The

parties have sought to dissolve the marriage solemnized between them on

27.05.2015 by a decree of divorce, by consent. In this background, the

applicants have filed this criminal application for quashing and setting

aside of the first information report and the regular criminal case that is

pending against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

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

present in the Court, today. They state that the matters between them

have been compromised in terms of the compromise-deed that is

presented by the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 before the

APL 517/17 4 Judgment

Family Court. The non-applicant no.2 has stated that she does not wish

to proceed against any of the applicants as the parties have amicably

settled the dispute and have filed the compromise pursis before the

Family Court for seeking the decree of divorce on the terms and

conditions mentioned in the deed of compromise.

5. On a reading of the statements made in the criminal

application as also the compromise pursis filed before the Family Court

and after talking to the parties that are personally present in the Court

today, it appears that to secure the ends of justice, it would be necessary

to quash and set aside the first information report registered against the

applicants, as also the regular criminal case that is pending against them

in pursuance of the registration of the first information report. We find

that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them and they

have undertaken to withdraw the proceedings launched by them against

each other. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, by applying the

principles of law laid down in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of

Punjab, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 303, it would be necessary to quash

and set aside the first information report as well as the regular criminal

case pending against the applicants, specially when the trial would not

result in the conviction of the applicants, since the non-applicant no.2 is

not ready to proceed against the applicants.

APL 517/17 5 Judgment

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

allowed. The first information report registered against the applicants, as

also Regular Criminal Case No.98 of 2016 pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat are hereby quashed and set aside.

Order accordingly.

              JUDGE                                         JUDGE

APTE