Bombay High Court
Smt. Karishma W/O Arvind Khade And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 26 September, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
revn.132.16(J) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 132 of 2016
1. Smt. Karishma W/o Arvind Khade,
Aged about 30 years,Occ-Household,
2. Shri Arvind S/o Shyamrao Khade,
Aged about 41 years,Occ-Service
Both R/o Flat No.201,Vithai Apartment,
Haveli Garden, Chandrapur. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gittikhadan,Nagpur.
2. Smt.Sushma Chetan Dhore,
Aged 30 years,Occ-Household,
R/o-C/o Pralhad Thaware,
Plot No.30, Radke Layout,
Balaji nagar, Hingna Road,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sunil S.Shinde, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for State-respondent no.1
Shri Gajendra A.Khedkar, Advocate for respondent no.2 with
Advocate Shri G.B.Hemke.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- SEPTEMBER 26,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2] The challenge in the present revision is the order
passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,Nagpur dated
26/7/2016 in S.T.No.503/2015, by which the learned Judge of
the Court below rejected the application filed on behalf of the
present petitioners for discharge.
3] The respondent no.2 is the first informant. She filed
F.I.R. with P.S.Gittikhdan on 7/1/2015. Since the F.I.R. was
disclosing commission of cognizable offence, the investigating
officer registered a crime for the offence punishable under
Sections 316, 498-A , 504,506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, against the husband of respondent no.2 and other accused
persons.
4] After completion of investigation, the investigating
officer filed final report in the Court of law. Since the offence
under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable
by the Court of Session the learned Magistrate committed the case
to the Court of Session and it was registered as S.T.No.503/2015.
The chargesheet shows that petitioner no.1 is sister in law of the
complainant ,whereas petitioner no.2 is husband of petitioner
no.1. Admittedly, petitioners were not residing always with the
complainant or accused no.2 Archana Dilip Dhore, mother in law
of complainant and accused no.1 Chetan Dilip Dhore, husband of
the complainant. The chargesheet shows that only allegations
against the present petitioners are in respect of offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and giving abuses to the
complainant.
5] During the pendency of the present revision this Court
vide order dated 4/7/2017 referred the matter for mediation.
With the help of learned mediator the parties reached to the
amicable settlement and in that behalf the mediation report is
placed on record.
6] According to mediation report, the husband and wife
have decided to part their ways by filing mutual divorce
proceedings before the learned Family Court,Nagpur. In fact, the
mutual divorce petition is filed by Chetan Dilip Dhore and
respondent no.2 who herself is present in the Court which is
registered as F.No.482/2017. She also confirmed that she has
received Rs. 30,000/- as per settlement terms.
7] As per the chargesheet, there are no allegations against
the present petitioners in respect of the offence punishable under
Section 316 of the Indian penal Code. All the allegations against
the petitioners are restricted only in respect of offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
8] In view of the above and in view of the fact that the
complainant has settled her matrimonial dispute with her
husband, in my view the impugned order is required to be set
aside. Consequently, the revision is allowed.
9] The impugned order passed by learned Assistant
Sessions Judge,Nagpur in S.T.No.503/2015 dated 26/7/2016 is
hereby set aside.
10] The application below Exh.12 in S.T.No.503/2015 filed
by the present petitioners is hereby allowed.
11] The petitioners stands discharged from S.T.No.
503/2015.
Rule is made absolute in view of above terms.
JUDGE
kitey
