Meraj Hussain Azhar Hussain vs State Of Mah, Thr P.So. P.S. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10855 Bom

 Judgment                                   1                               apl364.19.odt




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


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 364/2019


 1]       Meraj Hussain S/o Azhar Hussain,
          Aged 35 years, Occ. Nil,

 2]       Azhar Hussain S/o Gulam Hussain,
          Aged 68 years, Occ. Business,

 3]       Shamshad Begam W/o Azhar Hussain,
          Aged 60 years, Occ. Nil,

 4]       Aadab Hussain S/o Azhar Hussain,
          Aged 40 years, Occ. Business,

 5]       Shadab Hussain S/o Azhar Hussain,
          Aged 36 years, Occ. Business,

          All R/o. Major Dhyanchand Ward,
          Behind Amar Talkies, Kazi Mohalla
          Seoni, Tah. Dist. Seoni (M.P.)

 6]       Rana Shadab W/o Salim Zahir Ansari,
          Aged 38 years, Occ. Household

 7]       Salim Zahir Ansari,
          Aged 40 years, Occ. Business

          6 & 7 R/o. Shalimar Furniture,
          (Former Salim Hotel),
          Mominpura, Nagpur (M.S.)
                                                                 .... APPLICANT(S)

                                   // VERSUS //

 1]       State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station Officer,
          Bhandara




 ANSARI



::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2021 22:28:25 :::
  Judgment                                   2                                apl364.19.odt




 2]       Durre Shahewar W/o Meraj Hussain,
          Aged 31 years, Occ. Doctor,
          R/o. C/o. Gulamus Saiyyadin,
          Mahal Ward, Bhandara
                                                           .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

  *******************************************************************
               Shri A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for the applicant(s)
            Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant/State
             Shri N. Patel, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

AUGUST 11, 2021

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

1] Heard.

 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



 3]               This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 23/2019 dated 08/01/2019

registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicants with the accusations that marriage between the applicant no. 1

and non-applicant no. 2 was solemnized on 24/12/2011. After few days of

ANSARI

Judgment 3 apl364.19.odt

marriage, the applicants physically and mentally harassed the non-applicant

no. 2 for non payment of dowry and therefore the non-applicant no. 2 lodged

first information report with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station.

5] During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have

mutually resolved their dispute. The applicants and the non-applicant no. 2

have filed joint settlement pursis stating that the applicants have delivered

demand draft of Rs. 12,00,000/- in favour of the non-applicant no. 2, details

of which are given in para no. 4 of the pursis. It is stated that the non-

applicant no. 2 shall co-operate with the applicants for quashing the first

information report.

6] The non-applicant no. 2 - informant is present before this Court

today. This Court enquired with the informant as to whether the consent

given by her was out of her free will or not. The non-applicant no. 2 has

stated before this Court that there is no pressure or coercion on the non-

applicant no. 2 for settlement of dispute and for withdrawal of the

proceedings against the applicants. She has also stated that she is voluntarily

withdrawing the proceedings filed against the applicants herein.

7] Having carefully considered the allegations in the first

information report, we are satisfied that the offences alleged against the

ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl364.19.odt

applicants are personal in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has

taken a view that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved

is purely of a 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.

8] In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in view of the settlement between

the parties, we are satisfied that the first information report against the

applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside.

 9]               Hence, the following order:-



                  (a)          F.I.R. No. 23/2019 dated 08/01/2019 registered with

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

applicants for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed and set aside.

 ANSARI




  Judgment                                        5                                  apl364.19.odt




                  (b)          The Family Court, Bhandara shall disburse the amount

of demand draft, if already not disbursed, deposited by

the applicants along with accrued interest thereon, if

any.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                   (JUDGE)                                         (JUDGE)




 ANSARI