Balaji Bhaourao Vajire And 4 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Manora ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2237 Bom

         Judgment                           1                 apl1098.21.odt




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


                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1098/2021


         1]    Balaji Bhaourao Vajire,
               Aged about 52 years, Occ. Incharge HM,

         2]    Kamal W/o Balaji Vajire,
               Aged about 48 years, Occ. Household,

         3]    Sachin S/o Balaji Vajire,
               Aged about 27 years, Occ. Private Job

         4]    Priyanka D/o Balaji Vajire,
               Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student,

               All R/o. Antule Nagar,
               Balsond, Hingoli, Tah. Hingoli,
               Dist. Hingoli

         5]    Sujata Ravikant Shelke,
               Aged about 43 years, Occ. Household,
               R/o. Shelke Wadi, Post Vasantnagar,
               Tah. Mudkhed, District Nanded
                                                        .... APPLICANT(S)

                                     // VERSUS //

         1]    State of Maharashtra,
               Through Police Station Officer,
               Police Station, Manora,
               Tah. Manora & Dist. Washim




ANSARI
          Judgment                           2                       apl1098.21.odt




         2]    Sau. Pooja W/o Pravin Vajire,
               Aged about 25 years, Occ. Private Job,
               R/o. C/o. Gajanan Shankarrao Jadhav,
               Mungasaji Nagar, Manora,
               Tah. Manora, District Washim
                                                        .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

         *******************************************************************
                      Shri V.N. Patre, Advocate for the Applicant(s)
                 Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, APP for the Non-applicant/State
                 Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate for the Non-applicant No. 2
         *******************************************************************

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

MARCH 07, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT 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 who are in-laws of the Non-

Applicant No. 2 are challenging registration of the F.I.R. No. 340/2021

and consequent charge-sheet bearing No. 90/2021 registered with the

ANSARI Judgment 3 apl1098.21.odt

Non-Applicant No. 1 - Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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 on the ground of non-

payment of dowry. The Investigating Agency, after completion of the

investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Applicants. The Applicants

have therefore challenged continuation of the proceedings in pursuance

of the F.I.R. No. 340/2021.

5] During the pendency of the proceedings against the

Applicants, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. The terms of

settlement are reduced in writing by way of settlement deed dated

30/11/2021. According to the said settlement deed, the Non-Applicant

No. 2 and her husband have decided to file the proceedings for divorce

on the ground of mutual consent. The Non-Applicant No. 2 is present in

the Court today and she has stated before the Court that she does not

want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the Applicants and she

ANSARI Judgment 4 apl1098.21.odt

has no objection to quash the first information report & the charge-sheet

against the Applicants.

6] On careful scrutiny of the allegations and the material

produced in the form of charge-sheet, 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.

7] 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 and

ANSARI Judgment 5 apl1098.21.odt

the charge-sheet against the Applicants deserve to be quashed and set

aside.

8] Hence, the following order is passed:-

F.I.R. No. 340/2021 registered with the Non-Applicant

No. 1 - Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

consequent Charge-sheet bearing No. 90/2021 against the

Applicants are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

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

                                                 (JUDGE)                                  (JUDGE)




   Signed By:AKRAM PARVEZ
   MAQSOOD AHMAD ANSARI
   Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judge
   Signing Date:09.03.2022 16:26

ANSARI