Mayuri W/O Nitin Kumar Taunk And 5 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Pratap ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9365 Bom

                                            1                       9-apl-659-21j.odt

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

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 659 OF 2021

  1. Mrs. Mayuri W/o. Nitin Kumar Taunk,
     Aged about 34 years,
     R/o. Plot No. 85, Nelco Society,
     Subhash Nagar, Nagpur.

  2. Mr. Nitin Kumar S/o. Arun Kumar Taunk,
     Aged about 37 years,

  3. Mr. Arun Kumar S/o. Vishram Taunk,
     Aged about 71 years, Occ. Job (MNC),

  4. Smt. Tara W/o. Arun Kumar Taunk,
     Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household,

      All 2 to 4 R/o. Plot No. 9, Gupteshwar
      Marg, Hathital Colony, Jabalpur,
      Madhya Pradesh.

  5. Smt. Ankita Amarjeet Singh,
     Aged about 32 years,
     R/o. 121, Sanyog Apartment,
     Mayur Vihar, Phase-1,
     New Delhi-91.

  6. Nayan S/o. Arun Kumar Taunk,
     Aged about 32 years,
     R/o. C/o. Arun Kumar S/o. Vishram Taunk,
     Plat No. 9, Gupteshwar Marg,
     Hathital Colony, Jabalpur,
     Madhya Pradesh.                                         . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  State of Maharashtra through
  Police Station Officer,
  Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.                . . . NON-APPLICANT




::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 15:12:06 :::
                                                 2                               9-apl-659-21j.odt

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. S. Shukla, Advocate for applicant no.1.
 Shri Soumitra Paliwal, Advocate for applicant nos. 2 to 6.
 Ms. Mrunal A. Barabde, A.P. P. for non-applicant/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 16.07.2021

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

1. Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and

learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality were proper.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. This is a joint application filed by the original complainant

and accused for quashing the First Information Report No. 24/2018,

dated 28.01.2018 registered with the non-applicant- Police Station for

the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also final

report No. 114/2018, dated 11.09.2018 and consequent Regular

Criminal Case No. 3482/2018 pending before 13 th Jt. C.J.J.D. &

J.M.F.C., Nagpur.

4. The FIR came to be registered against applicant nos. 2 to 6

with accusations that applicant nos. 2 to 6 physically and mentally

3 9-apl-659-21j.odt

harassed the applicant no. 1 on the ground of non-payment of dowry.

The Investigating Agency after completion of the investigation has filed

charge-sheet.

5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants have arrived

at mutual settlement and have therefore, filed present joint application

challenging the FIR, charge-sheet and consequent proceedings. It is

stated in the application that since the applicant no. 1 and the

applicant no. 2 are young and have long life ahead of them and

therefore, they have decided to withdraw all allegations against each

other and have therefore, jointly prayed for quashing of the

proceedings against the applicant nos. 2 to 6.

6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR.

The offence alleged against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 are of personal

nature. 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 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 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.

4 9-apl-659-21j.odt

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is

no impediment in quashing the proceedings against the applicant nos.

2 to 6. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

First Information Report No. 24/2018, dated 28.01.2018

registered against the applicant nos. 2 to 6 with non-applicant- Police

Station for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

and Final Report No. 114/2018, dated 11.09.2018 and consequent

Regular Criminal Case No. 3482/2018 pending before the 13 th Jt.

C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE


RR Jaiswal