Nazima Khan D/O Haji Ishaque Khan ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Dist ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6317 Bom

                                             1                               14-apl-1241-19j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1241 OF 2019

  1. Nazima Khan D/o. Haji Ishaque Khan,
     Age 50 years, Occ. President,
     Mother Teresa Trust,

  2. Akbar Khan S/o. Haji Ishaque Khan,
     Age 24 years, Occ. Service,

      Both R/o. Mirza Nagar,
      Near Hussainia Madarsa, Prabhag 2,
      Buldhana, Dist. Buldhana.                                          . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. The State of Maharashtra through
     PSO of PS Buldhana,
     Dist. Buldhana.

  2. Arshiya Perveen Akbar Khan,
     Age 21 years, Occ. Nil,
     R/o. Near Iqbal Kirana,
     Jawai Nagar, Buldhana City,
     Dist. Buldhana.                                               . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Parvez W. Mirza, Advocate for applicants.
 Ms. Shamshi Haider, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 08.04.2021

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2 14-apl-1241-19j.odt

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of First

Information Report (FIR) No. 519/2019 registered against them with

the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 376B, 323, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

accusations that marriage of the non-applicant no. 2 was performed

with the applicant no. 2 on 02.11.2016. It is alleged that the applicant

no. 2 thereafter harassed the non-applicant no. 2 for non-payment of

dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is alleged that after a period of 1½ month, the

non-applicant no. 2 was residing along with her mother and father. It

is alleged that on 21.01.2019, the applicant no. 2 came to the house of

the parents of the non-applicant no. 2 and performed forcible sexual

intercourse with the non-applicant no. 2. The FIR came to be

registered against the applicant no. 19.09.2019. The applicants have

therefore challenged the registration of the FIR by filing the present

application.

5. This Court on 26.11.2016 issued notice to the non-

applicants. The non-applicant no. 1-Investigating Agency has filed

reply stating that after marriage between the applicant no. 2 and the

non-applicant no. 2, the non-applicant no. 2 started residing separately

3 14-apl-1241-19j.odt

at her parents' house and filed proceeding under Domestic Violence

Act. It is alleged that the applicant no. 2 performed forcible sexual

intercourse with the non-applicant no. 2. It is stated that there is

sufficient material available with the prosecution, which implicate the

applicants.

6. The applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 have filed joint

compromise purshis dated 25.01.2021, wherein the non-applicant no.

2 has stated that she has no objection to quash FIR No. 519/2019.

Thereafter, the non-applicant no. 2 has filed reply, which is affirmed by

the non-applicant no. 2, stating that the FIR came to be registered

against the applicants due to mis-understanding and the applicants

and the non-applicant no. 2 have arrived at settlement by executing

the Settlement Deed (Khulanama) dated 08.01.2021, which is annexed

as Annexure-R2 alongwith reply.

7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR. In

view of the fact that the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 have

resolved their dispute amicably and the non-applicant no. 2 being wife

of the applicant no. 2 and the offence alleged are in relation to their

matrimonial issues, we are satisfied that there is no impediment in

quashing the FIR registered against the applicants.

4 14-apl-1241-19j.odt

8. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot

reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it is advisable that

in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature,

the Court should originally accept the terms of compromise even in

criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility in

favour of the prosecution is a luxury which Courts, grossly over-

burdened, as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be

utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

9. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

First Information Report No. 519/2019 registered with the

non-applicant no. 1-Police Station against the applicant for offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 376B, 323, 506, 504 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                             JUDGE                                           JUDGE

RR Jaiswal