Bombay High Court
Smt. Kalpana Wd/O. Vinod Nagpure vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 17 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.W.P.No.843.2018-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.843 OF 2018
Smt. Kalpana Wd/o. Vinod Nagpure,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Flat No.306, Hani Archana Apartments,
Above Axis Bank, Untakhana Road,
Medical Chowk, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER
(Ori. Accused No.2)
---- VERSUS ----
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Bhandara,
Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
2. Mrs. Rohini W/o. Ashish Nagpure,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Shivaji Ward, Bank Colony,
Bhandara. .... RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Complainant)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shri A. A. Sambaray, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P. P. for the Respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pramod Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 17.08.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioner who is original accused No.2 is
challenging continuation of Regular Criminal Case No.87/2018
arising out of Crime No.276/2018 registered with the respondent
No.1 - Police Station for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506,
498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the husband of the respondent No.2 alleging that the
husband of the respondent No.2 physically and mentally harassed
the respondent No.2. The Investigating Agency after completion of
the investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and the
husband of the respondent No.2.
5. During pendency of the present petition, the husband
of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 have arrived at mutual
settlement. The petitioner has produced on record copy of
judgment in Marriage Petition No.F-393/2020 passed by the Family
Court No.4, Nagpur dated 06.11.2020 thereby granted divorce as
regards marriage of husband of respondent No.2 and respondent
No.2. The respondent No.2 has filed Criminal Application (APPW)
No.115/2020 to request quashment of Regular Criminal Case
No.87/2018. Along with said application, the respondent No.2 has
placed on record memorandum of understanding dated 31.10.2020
entered into between the respondent No.2 and her husband Ashish
Vinod Nagpure. Clause - N of the said memorandum of
understanding contains an agreement between the husband of the
respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2
shall withdraw the First Information Report and criminal
proceedings.
6. Today, when the matter is called out, the respondent
No.2 is personally present. She has stated before the Court that she
has settled the dispute between her husband and herself and
therefore, she does not intend to prosecute the present petitioner
and the husband of the respondent No.2 shall stated before the
Court that she has decided to withdraw the criminal proceedings
against her husband and the petitioner out of her own free will.
7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
Information Report and the material in the form of charge-sheet.
On careful perusal of the said material, it appears that the offences
alleged against the petitioner and the husband of the respondent
No.2 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 of a purely personal nature, the Court
should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal
proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of
conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), we pass the following
order :
Regular Criminal Case No.87/2018 arising out of Crime
No.276/2018 registered with the respondent No.1 - Police Station
for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 498-A read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
