Bombay High Court
Jaideep S/O Raju Gundeti And 3 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 15 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
49 apl 384.14.jud.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.384 OF 2014
1. Jaideep S/o Raju Gundeti,
Age 30 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Mul Road,
Chandrapur.
2. Raju S/o Nandaiah Gundeti,
Age 60 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o 'Shastri Nagar, Mul Road,
Chandrapur.
3. Shobha W/o Raju Gundeti,
Age 56 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Mul Road,
Chandrapur.
4. Vishal Mantriwar,
Age : Major, Occ: Service,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Mul Road,
Chandrapur. ....APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the P.S. Officer,
Police Station Ram Nagar,
District : Chandrapur.
2. Ku. Rohini D/o Liladhar Talewar,
Age years, Occ: Student,
R/o Megha Apartment,
Near Bhawanjibhai School,
Swastik Nagar, Chandrapur. .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri A.S. Ambatkar, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri A. Krishnan, Advocate h/f Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
______________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 21:33:06 :::
49 apl 384.14.jud.odt
2/4
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15.01.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information Report
No.114/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 500,
501 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants
demanded Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry and threatened that if
dowry was not paid, the marriage would not be solemnized. It is
also urged that in case of non-payment of the dowry, the applicants
would publish cancellation of the proposed marriage in the
newspaper.
4. The applicants, therefore, filed present application before
this Court challenging the registration of the First Information
49 apl 384.14.jud.odt
Report. This Court on 20th February 2015 issued rule and by an
interim order, it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken
against the applicants. During the pendency of the present
application, the parties have amicably settled the issues between
them and have filed Pursis before this Court. The Pursis is taken on
record and marked as Exhibit 'X' for identification.
5. We have considered the contents in the First Information
Report. Taking into consideration the offences which are alleged
against the applicants in personal nature, and in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh
& Others vs State Of Punjab & Another reported in 2014 AIR SCW
2065, the First Information Report can be quashed.
6. Learned Advocate for non-applicant No.2 has stated that
the non-applicant No.2 has received the cheque which is along with
the Pursis. The applicants undertake before this Court that they will
honour the cheque issued in favour of the non-applicant No.2. The
undertaking is accepted.
7. We are, therefore, satisfied that the applicants have
made out the case for quashing the First Information Report
49 apl 384.14.jud.odt
impugned in the present application.
8. We, therefore, pass the following order:-
(i) The First Information Report No.114/2014 registered
with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 500, 501 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
