Chandrashekhar S/O Vinayak ... vs State Of Mah, Thr P.So. P.S Gadge ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2901 Bom

                                                    1                       apl447.19.odt


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

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 447/2019

1. Chandrashekhar s/o Vinayak Honade,
   aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

2. Vinayak s/o Dalpat Honade,
   aged about 66 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

3. Asha w/o Vinayak Honade,
   aged about 62 years, Occ. Household.

    All r/o Honade Complex, Anjansinghi
    Road, Dhamangaon Railway,
    Dist. Amravati.                                          .....APPLICANTS

                              ...V E R S U S...

1. State of of Maharashtra, through
   Police Station Officer, Police Station
   Gadge Nagar, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

2. Poonam w/o Chandrashekhar Honade,
   aged about 33 years, Occ. Household,
   r/o c/o Shri Subhash Ganesh Mankar,
   Siddhi Vinayak Nagar, Katra Naka,
   Amravati, Dist. Amravati.            ...NON APPLICANTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. M. K. Pathan, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
Mr. S. S. Dhengale, Advocate for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                                      AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
                              DATE:-  MARCH 24, 2022
                                          2                 apl447.19.odt

JUDGMENT (Per: Amit B. Borkar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

Heard Mr.Dafle, learned Advocate for applicants,

Mr.Pathan, learned A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 and

Mr.Dhengale, learned Advocate for non applicant no.2.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, husband and in-laws of non applicant no.2 are

challenging registration of First Information Report No.460/2019

dated 22.04.2019 with non applicant no.1, Police Station for the

offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

an accusation that the applicants physically and mentally harassed

non applicant no.2 for non payment of dowry and applicant no.2-

father-in-law has outraged modesty of non applicant no.2. The

applicants have, therefore, challenged registration of the FIR by

filing the present application.

This Court on 29.04.2019 issued notices to the non

applicants.

3 apl447.19.odt

4. During the pendency of present application, applicants

and non applicant no.2 have arrived at an amicable settlement.

Non applicant no.2 has filed affidavit dated 07.12.2021 stating

that in view of the compromise executed between applicants and

non applicant no.2 on 17.09.2019, they have amicably resolved

their dispute and accordingly, applicant no.1 has given an amount

of Rs.2,00,000/- to non applicant no.2 and the remaining amount

of Rs.1,10,000/- will be paid to her at the time of final disposal of

the present application.

5. This Court by order dated 21.01.2022 granted liberty to

the applicants to pay remaining amount to non applicant no.2.

Today, Mr. Dhengale, learned Advocate for non applicant no.2

states that non applicant no.2 has received remaining amount of

Rs.1,10,000/- and has no objection for quashing of the present

proceedings against the applicants.

6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR

along with reply filed by the non applicants and the material

available on record. Though the offence in relation to Section 354

of the IPC is a serious offence, after having gone through the

allegations and material on record, we are satisfied that even if the 4 apl447.19.odt

allegations are taken on their face value, the essential ingredients

of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC are not

fulfilled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh

and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.,1 has held that it is

permissible to quash a proceeding in relation to serious offences, if

the material on record shows that essential ingredients of the

offence alleged are not fulfilled and still the investigating agency

has incorporated the said offence.

7. The applicants are personally present in the Court. It is

stated by learned Advocate for Non applicant no.2 that non

applicant no.2 could not attend the Court today. However, he has

received instructions from non applicant no.2 that she has no

objection for quashing of the First Information Report against the

applicants.

8. Taking overall view of the matter and in view of the

amicable resolution of the dispute between applicants and non

applicant no.2, we are satisfied that there is no impediment in

quashing First Information Report against the applicants. We,

therefore, pass the following order.

1    AIR 2014 SCW 2065
                                     5                 apl447.19.odt

                     ORDER

     (i)       The application is allowed.
     (ii)      First Information Report No.460/2019, dated

22.04.2019, registered with Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati for an offence punishable under Sections 498- A, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

              JUDGE                           JUDGE



kahale