Bombay High Court
Motiram Tulshiram Nikam And 12 ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Station ... on 20 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 32-wp-775-19j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2019
1. Motiram Tulshiram Nikam,
Assistant Police Inspector,
Aged 54 years,
R/o. Kasarshirsi, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur, Maharashtra.
2. Swaraj Motiram Nikam,
Aged 20 years, Student,
C/o. M. T. Nikam, Kasarshirsi,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur,
Maharashtra.
3. Mrs. Nandani Motiram Nikam,
Aged 47, Homemaker,
R/o. Kasarshirsi, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur, Maharashtra.
4. Wasudeo Pundlik Kankhar,
Aged 72 years, Retd. Employee,
R/o. Chikhali, Tq. Chikhli,
Dist. Buldhana.
5. Mrs. Vatsala Wasudeo Kankhar,
Aged 68 years, Homemaker,
R/o. Chikhali, Tq. Chikhli,
Dist. Buldhana.
6. Vikram Tulshiram Nikam,
Aged 64, Farmer,
R/o. Naigao Dattapur,
Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana
7. Mrs. Durga Vikram Nikam,
Aged 61, Farmer,
R/o. Naigao Dattapur,
Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 03:20:19 :::
2 32-wp-775-19j.odt
8. Prakash Vikram Nikam,
Aged 45 years,
R/o. Pune, Employed, Vadhu Khurd,
Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune 412216.
9. Mrs. Aparna Prakash Nikam,
Aged 40 years,
R/o. Pune Homemaker, Vadhu Khurd,
Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune 412216.
10. Atmaram Tulshiram Nikam,
Aged 65 years, Farmer,
R/o. Naigao Dattapur,
Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
11. Mrs. Lila Atmaram Nikam,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Farmer,
R/o. Naigao Dattapur,
Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
12. Vishnu Vikram Nikam,
Aged 38 years, Employed,
R/o. Telephone Colony,
Balaji Nagar, Medankarwadi,
Post Chakan, Khed, Pune.
13. Mrs. Sharada Vishnu Nikam,
Aged 33 years, Homemaker,
R/o. Telephone Colony,
Balaji Nagar, Medankarwadi,
Post Chakan, Khed, Pune. . . . PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Station Incharge, Police Station Janefal,
Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana,
Maharashtra.
2. Mrs. Dhanashri W/o. Pavan Nikam,
D/o. Tanaji Laxman Andhale,
Age 21 years, Currently R/o. Ooti,
Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana, MH. . . . RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 03:20:19 :::
3 32-wp-775-19j.odt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rahul Waghmare h/f. Shri N. B. Rathod, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri Ram Heda h/f. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent
no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED:- 20.12.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-
1. Heard Shri Rahul Waghmare, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri S. S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/State
and Shri Ram Heda, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request
and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This is an application for quashing of First Information
Report (FIR) No. 129/2016, dated 15.06.2019 under Section 498A
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Janefal Police Station,
Tah. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced on record
the terms of compromise arrived at between both of them before the
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana in H.M.P. No.
44/2020. He points out that in terms of compromise, learned Civil
4 32-wp-775-19j.odt
Judge Senior Division, Mehkar has issued a decree of divorce dated
22.01.2021 by mutual consent. They submit that since the disputes
were being sorted out, the impugned FIR may be quashed.
5. The Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that
respondent no. 2 is unable to remain present today because, after the
decree of divorce, she has already remarried. He however states that
he has instructions to say that the matter is indeed being settled and
that respondent no. 2 has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR.
6. Having regard to the terms of compromise and also the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi
Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], we see no difficulty in
accepting the joint request made on behalf of learned counsel for the
petitioners and respondent no. 2 for quashing of the impugned FIR.
Hence, the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside.
7. The petitioners, in this case, will have to pay costs of
₹25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) in favor of Vidharbha Lady25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) in favor of Vidharbha Lady
Lawyers Association, Nagpur. Such costs will have to be paid within
four weeks from today and the order of quashing will take effect only
after such costs are paid and receipt of payment is filed in the Court.
5 32-wp-775-19j.odt
8. If the costs are not paid within four weeks from today
then, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs
of ₹25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) in favor of Vidharbha Lady25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) without further reference to
the Court.
9. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, we
clarify that the impugned FIR is quashed in its entirety i.e. also against
Pawan S/o. Motiram Nikam, even though the said Pawan Nikam is not
one of the petitioners in this petition.
10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)
RR Jaiswal
