Chandni W/O. Mohd. Shabbir Ansari ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7721 Bom

 2909APL667.17-Judgment                                                               1/4


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)  NO.  667   OF   2017


 APPLICANTS :-                 1. Chandni   w/o   Mohd   Shabbir   Ansari,   Aged
                                  about   31   Yeras,   Occu:   Housewife,   R/o   :-
                                  Walni,   Mines,   Qtr.   No.107,   Khaperkheda,
                                  Nagpur.  

                               2. Mohd.   Shabbir   S/o   Rafique   Ansari,   Aged
                                  about   42   years,   Occ.   Service,   R/o   House
                                  No.4,   Sohail   Manzil,   Jinsi   Road,
                                  Jahangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.). 

                               3. Rafique   s/o   Sultan   Ansari,   Ageda   bout   60
                                  years, Occ. Retired, 

                               4. Mumtaz   Begam   w/o   Rafique   Ansari,   Aged
                                  about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, 

                               5. Shamma d/o Rafique Ansari, aged about 31
                                  years, Occ.

                               6. Shabina d/o Rafique Ansari, Aged about 27
                                  years, Occ.

                                   All   R/o   Q.No.1063,   Shobhapur   Railway
                                   Colony, Betul (M.P.).

                               7.  Sabiya w/o Mumtaz Ansari, Aged about 32
                                  years,   Occ:   Housewife,   R/o-Calac   Colony
                                  Shobhapur Betul (M.P.)


                                      ...VERSUS... 


 RESPONDENT :-                     State of Maharashtra, through Police Station
                                   Officer, Khaparkheda, Nagpur. 




::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017                             ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 01:09:55 :::
  2909APL667.17-Judgment                                                                         2/4


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. Tejas Patil, counsel for the applicants.
   Ms Tajwar Khan, Additional Public Prosecutors for the non-applicant. 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

DATED : 29.09.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (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 applicant Nos.2 to 7 for the offences punishable under

sections 66(d), 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and

sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.

3. The applicant No.1 was married to the applicant No.2 in

the year 2009. It is stated on behalf of the applicant No.1 that in a fit of

anger, the applicant No.1 had lodged a report against the applicant

Nos.2 to 7. It is stated that due to the intervention of elders and some

2909APL667.17-Judgment 3/4

members of the family, the applicants have settled the dispute as the

applicant No.2 is ready to take back the applicant No.1 in the

matrimonial home. It is stated that the applicants would not be able to

live harmoniously if the first information report registered against the

applicant Nos.2 to 7 is not quashed and set aside. It is stated that the

applicant No.1 is not desirous of prosecuting the proceedings that may

be launched against the applicant Nos.2 to 7.

4. All the applicants are present in the court today. The

applicant No.2 has stated that she has settled the matter with the

applicant Nos.2 to 7. It is stated that she wishes to live with the

applicant Nos.2 to 7 in the matrimonial home. The non-applicant No.2

states that he is ready to accept the applicant No.1 in the matrimonial

home and they desire to live in harmony. The applicant No.1 has stated

that since she wishes to live in the matrimonial home along with the

other applicants and does not wish to prosecute them, it would be

necessary to quash and set aside the first information report registered

against the applicant Nos.2 to 7.

5. In the interest of justice, it would be necessary to allow the

criminal application and quash and set aside the first information report

registered against the applicant Nos.2 to 7, more so when the applicant

2909APL667.17-Judgment 4/4

Nos.2 to 7 are ready to welcome the applicant No.1 in the matrimonial

house. Since the applicant No.1 is not desirous of prosecuting the

matter against the applicant Nos.2 to 7, it is most unlikely that the trial

would result in the conviction of the applicant Nos.2 to 7. When the

compromise between the parties, specially in a matrimonial matter

could itself be a consideration for quashing and setting aside the first

information report, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the

first information report by relying on the judgments reported in (2012)

10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) and (2014) 6 SCC 466

(Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another), in this

regard.

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

is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicant

Nos.2 to 7 is hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.

                        JUDGE                                                    JUDGE 




 KHUNTE