Bombay High Court
Yogendra S/O Bhimrao Wagde And 5 ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Ps Pulgaon Dist ... on 16 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl1054.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1054/2019
1] Yogendra S/o Bhimrao Wagde,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Service
2] Bhupendra S/o Bhimrao Wagde,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service
3] Sau. Priya W/o Bhupendra Wagde,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household
4] Bhimrao S/o Pundlik Wagde,
Aged about 57 years, Occ. Cultivator
All R/o - Jagjai, Post. Undari,
Tah. Pulgaon, District Yavatmal
5] Dhamma S/o Pandharinath Nagrale,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service
6] Sau. Vaishali W/o Dhamma Nagrale,
@ Vaishali D/o Bhimrao Wagde,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household
Both R/o. Khapari, Gangapur,
Tah. Hinganghat, District Wardha
At present R/o. - Near Railway Station,
Pulgaon, Tahsil Deoli, District Wardha
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
ANSARI
::: Uploaded on - 20/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 00:38:51 :::
Judgment 2 apl1054.19.odt
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Pulgaon, District Wardha
2] Nilisha Yogendra Wagde,
Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Jagjai, Post - Undari,
Tah. Pulgaon, District Yavatmal
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the non-applicant/State
Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 16, 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. 369/2019 dated
12/06/2019 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl1054.19.odt
the offences punishable under Section 313 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicants with the accusations that the marriage between the non-
applicant no. 2 and the applicant no. 1 was performed on 27/04/2018. It
is alleged that when the non-applicant no. 2 was carrying pregnancy of
three months, the applicant no. 1 forced the non-applicant no. 2 to have
medicine to terminate her pregnancy which resulted into her miscarriage.
She therefore lodged the first information report with the non-applicant
no. 1 - Police Station. The applicants have therefore filed the present
application challenging registration of the first information report.
5] This Court on 30/09/2019 issued notices to the non-
applicants. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the non-
applicant no. 1 has filed reply stating that there is prima-facie material
available against the applicants.
6] Today, when the matter is called out, the non-applicant no. 2
is present before the Court. She has stated that she intends to reside along
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl1054.19.odt
with the applicant no. 1 and to maintain cordial relation with the family
members. She has decided to withdraw the criminal proceedings against
the applicants. She has stated that the applicants have not exerted any
pressure or duress on the non-applicant no. 2.
7] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first
information report along with reply filed by the non-applicant no. 1. 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
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl1054.19.odt
between the parties, we are satisfied that the first information report
against the applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 369/2019 registered with the non-applicant no. 1
- Police Station against the applicants for the offences
punishable under Section 313 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
