Rahul Shankarrao Thengne And 5 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14667 Bom

          Judgment                              1                               apl396.20.odt




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 396/2020


          1]       Rahul Shankarrao Thengne,
                   Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service

          2]       Shankar Atmaram Thengne,
                   Aged about 59 years, Occ. Private

          3]       Shalu Shankarrao Thengne,
                   Aged about 55 years, Occ. Housewife

          4]       Nandkishor Shankarrao Thengne,
                   Aged about 28 years, Occ. Private

          5]       Sau. Asha Rupesh Virutkar,
                   Aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife,
                   R/o. Kalamb, Tah. Kalamb, District Yavatmal

          6]       Marotrao Atmaram Thengne,
                   Aged about 57 years, Occ. Private,

                   Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 R/o.
                   Vitthalkwadi, Ward No. 1, Wani,
                   Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal
                                                                   .... APPLICANT(S)

                                          // VERSUS //

          1]       State of Maharashtra,
                   Through its P.S.O. Pandharkawada,
                   Tah. Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal




ANSARI



         ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 02:45:44 :::
           Judgment                               2                              apl396.20.odt




          2]       Sau. Tejaswini Rahul Thengne,
                   Aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife,
                   R/o. Chintamani Layout C/o Shri
                   Prabhakar Utane, Pandharkawada,
                   Yavatmal, District Yavatmal
                                                          .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

           *******************************************************************
                      Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the applicant(s)
                   Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant/State
                   Ms. A.K. Rawate, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
           *******************************************************************

                             CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

OCTOBER 07, 2021

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

1] Heard.

          2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.



          3]               By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging registration of F.I.R.

No. 483/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

ANSARI




           Judgment                                 3                               apl396.20.odt




          4]               The first information report came to be registered against the

applicants with the accusations that the applicants physically and

mentally harassed the non-applicant no. 2. The applicants therefore filed

the present application challenging registration of the first information

report.

5] This Court on 11/12/2020 issued notices to the non-

applicants. The non-applicant no. 1, in pursuance of the notice issued by

this Court, has filed reply stating that the material on record is sufficient

to constitute the offences alleged against the applicants.

6] During the pendency of the present application, the

applicant no. 1 and the non-applicant no. 2 have mutually resolved their

dispute. The non-applicant no. 2 is present in the Court today. She stated

before the Court that she has received three cheques, total amounting to

Rs. 28,50,000/- as per clause (b) of settlement arrived at between the

parties before the 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. The applicant

no. 1 who is present in the Court has undertaken before the Court that

the cheques handed over to the non-applicant no. 2 will be honoured.

The non-applicant no. 2 has stated before the Court that she has given no

ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl396.20.odt

objection to quash the proceedings against the applicants out of her free

will and there is no pressure exerted on her for settling the matter.

7] Having carefully considered the allegations in the first

information report and the material on record, we are satisfied that the

offences alleged 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 originally accept the terms of

compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with

no possibility 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.

8] In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and in view of the settlement

between the parties, we are satisfied that the first information report

against the applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside.

ANSARI




           Judgment                                5                               apl396.20.odt




          9]               Hence, the following order:-

F.I.R. No. 483/2020 registered with the non-applicant no. 1

- Police Station against the applicants for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                            (JUDGE)                                (JUDGE)




ANSARI