Shri Sandip S/O Ramchandra ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9711 Bom

                                               1                                27-apl-178-20j.odt



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

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 178 OF 2020


  1. Shri Sandip S/o. Ramchandra Balbudhe,
     Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
     R/o. Flat No. 103, Building No. A-15,
     Siddharth Nagar, Boriwali (East),
     Mumbai- 400 066.

  2. Smt. Yamuna W/o. Ramchandra Balbudhe,
     Aged about 65 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Shanti Nagar Colony, Qtr No. A/66,
     Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur.

  3. Shri Ramchandra S/o. Bhaiyyalal Balbudhe,
     Aged about 72 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Shanti Nagar Colony, Qtr No. A/66,
     Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur.
     (Name of applicant no. 3 deleted as per
     Court's order dated 11.01.2021)                                      . . . APPLICANTS


                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. The State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur.


  2. Smt. Yamini W/o. Sandip Balbudhe,
     Aged 34 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. C/o. Prakash Aadhav, Plot No. 41,
     Raj Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur-13.                              . . NON-APPLICANTS


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Shri V. P. Maldhure, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021                                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2021 10:09:43 :::
                                              2                             27-apl-178-20j.odt



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

DATED :- 26.07.2021

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. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of the

First Information Report (FIR) No. 413/2014, dated 08.11.2014 for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station and

consequent charge-sheet no. 33/2015, dated 18.03.2015 and

proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 956/2015, pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

accusations that the non-applicant no. 2 was physically and mentally

harassed by the applicants. The Investigating Agency after

investigation into the case filed charge-sheet. The applicants have

3 27-apl-178-20j.odt

therefore challenged filing of the charge-sheet and registration of the

FIR by way of present application. This Court on 11.01.2021 issued

notice to the non-applicant no. 2, in pursuance of which the non-

applicant no. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that the applicants and the

non-applicant no. 2 have resolved their dispute mutually. It is stated

that the applicant no. 1 and the non-applicant no. 2 have dissolved

their marriage by mutual consent as per Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. It is stated that the non-applicant no. 2 is

re-married and is residing with her husband and therefore, she does

not want to prosecute against the applicants.

5. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR

and material in the form of charge-sheet. The offence alleged against

the applicants are personal in nature. The Apex 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 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 27-apl-178-20j.odt

6. Since, the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 have

mutually resolved their dispute and in view of the judgment in the

case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra), there is no impediment in

quashing the proceedings against the applicants. We, therefore, pass

the following order:-

First Information No. 413/2014, dated 08.11.2014 for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code registered against the applicants with non-applicant no. 1-Police

Station and charge-sheet No. 33/2015, dated 18.03.2015 and

proceeding vide R.C.C. No. 956/2015 pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set

aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE




RR Jaiswal