Aniket Amrit Kadam And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 9233 Bom

  2023:BHC-AS:25846-DB


                                                                                         18-apl221-23.doc

    vai

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           Digitally signed by
VASANT     VASANT
ANANDRAO
           ANANDRAO
           IDHOL
                                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2023
IDHOL      Date: 2023.09.06
           10:59:58 +0530



                     Aniket A. Kadam & Ors.                                         ...Applicants
                                V/s.
                     State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                    ...Respondents


                     Ms.Shalu Tanwar i/b Adv.Aishwarya Belhekar for the Applicants.

                     Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.

                     Mr.Prasad Avhad i/b Adv.Kuldeep Nikam for Respondent No.2

                                                            CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                                    RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2023.

P.C. :-

1. The prayer is for quashing of the F.I.R. and consequential

charge-sheet in Crime No.272 of 2014, registered on 21st November,

2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420, 427 read

with 34 of I.P.C.

2. The Applicant No.1, who was married to Respondent No.2

on 3oPth May, 2014.

3. Since the marriage has not consummated, differences

arose thereby resulting in registration of the aforesaid offences.

4. Respondent No.2 - Complainant has placed on record an

18-apl221-23.doc

affidavit extending the consent for quashing through her lawyer. The

lawyer representing Respondent No.2 has identified her. Similarly we

have requested Mr.Gavand, learned APP to interact with Respondent

No.2 so as to verify whether the affidavit given is voluntary or not.

5. Mr.Gavand, learned APP informs that Respondent No.2

has volunteered to extend the consent of the aforesaid affidavit, as

the parties have already obtained the decree for divorce by mutual

consent.

6. In view of above, the fact remains that the parties i.e. the

Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have obtained the decree for

divorce by mutual consent from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Sangli in Hindu Marriage Petition No.244 of 2016 and

Respondent No.2 having extended voluntarily consent to the

aforesaid affidavit, no purpose would be served. In this backdrop, this

Court is required to be sensitive to the position of law in the

judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh

vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and

Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Reported in

(2014) 6 SCC 466. In view of the stand taken by Respondent No.2,

the Applicants cannot be made to face the prosecution, as the same

cannot be taken into its logical end.

7. That being so, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer

18-apl221-23.doc

clause (B) subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by

each of the Applicants to Janseva Foundation to be deposited in

Bank of Maharashtra Account No.20076764639 with IFSC Code

MAHB0000102. The cost shall be deposited by the Applicants within

four weeks from the receipt of the order and receipt to that effect be

placed on record within a week thereafter, failing which the order of

quashing of proceedings shall automatically stand recalled and this

Court will be constrained to proceed against the Applicants in

accordance with law.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)                       (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)