Bombay High Court
Devidas S/O Bajirao Jadhav And 5 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ansing ... on 30 June, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl283.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 283/2021
1] Devidas S/o Bajirao Jadhav,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner,
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
2] Bajirao Raghoji Jadhav,
Aged 70 years, Occ. Agriculture Labour
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
3] Kalawati W/o Bajirao Jadhav,
Aged 65 years, Occ. Household
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
4] Savitra W/o Sadashiv Kalapad,
Aged 42 years, Occ. Agriculture Labour,
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
5] Suraj Sadashiv Kalapad,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
6] Lata W/o Vitthal Jadhav,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Agriculture Labour,
R/o. Malegaon, Post Bhat Umra,
Tah & Dist. Washim
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ansing (Gramin),
Tah & Dist. Washim
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2021 22:30:35 :::
Judgment 2 apl283.21.odt
2] Sou. Komal W/o Devidas Jadhav,
Aged 20 years, R/o. At Bramha,
Post Pimpalgaon, (Dak Bangla),
Tah & Dist. Washim
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
JUNE 30, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging registration of F.I.R. No. 07/2021 dated 23/01/2021
registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicants with the accusations that the applicants physically and mentally
Judgment 3 apl283.21.odt
harassed the non-applicant no. 2 and demanded dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It
is alleged that the applicants physically assaulted the non-applicant no. 2 and
abused her. It is also alleged that though the applicant no. 1 is not an
Advocate, it is portrayed that he is legal practitioner.
5] The applicants have therefore challenged registration of the first
information report by way of the present application. The applicant no. 1 has
annexed his certificate of registration issued by the Bar Council and a
document to show that the applicant no. 1 is the member of the District Bar
Association and is qualified lawyer. The applicant no. 2 is the father-in-law
and the applicant no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the non-applicant no. 2. The
applicant nos. 4 and 6 are sisters-in-law of the non-applicant no. 2 and
applicant no. 5 is the son of the applicant no. 4.
6] This Court on 17/02/2021 issued notices to the non-applicants.
The applicant no. 1 has filed pursis dated 30/06/2021 stating that the
marriage between the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no. 2 has been
dissolved by the judgment and decree dated 20/03/2021 by the Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division, Washim in HMP No. 52/2021 (copy of which is placed
on record at page 10 of Annexure P-1). It is further stated in para no. 2 of the
said pursis that the non-applicant no. 2 is not interested in continuing with
the prosecution in relation to F.I.R. No. 07/2021 dated 23/01/2021. The said
Judgment 4 apl283.21.odt
pursis is signed by the applicant no. 1 and his advocate. Annexure P-2 to the
said pursis is the affidavit of the non-applicant no. 2 stating that the first
information report impugned in the present application needs to be quashed.
7] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first
information report and the pursis filed by the applicant no. 1 alongwith its
annexures. On careful consideration of the allegations in the first information
report, we are satisfied that the allegations against the applicants 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 purely of a
personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with
no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the
Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so
saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.
8] Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and the facts and circumstances
of the present case, we find that there is no impediment in quashing the first
information report against the applicants.
Judgment 5 apl283.21.odt
9] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 07/2021 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 -
Police Station against the applicants for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is
quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
