Allowed

Sandeep S/O Shankar Sorte and Anor. v. the State of Mah.Thr.Pso,Sakkardara,Nagpur

Bombay HC11 Jun 2007APPLN/1314/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The court held that since disputes had been resolved and parties were living together, the case was fit for quashing in the interest of justice relying on B.S. Joshi.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 2342/2006 pending against the Applicant No.1 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur is quashed and set aside.

Sandeep S/O Shankar Sorte and Anor. Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1314/07

¶3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶4

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶5

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : A.P. Lavande, J DATE : 11.6.2007

¶8

Heard Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent. Both the applicants are present in person.

¶9

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants seek quashing of Criminal Case No. 2342/2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Nagpur (Corporation Court No.1) which has been filed pursuant to report filed by applicant no.2 against applicant no.1.

¶10

The applicants got married on 7.12.2005. Thereafter certain disputes arose between the applicants which led to filing of the F.I.R. No. 119/06 by the Applicant No. 2 against the Applicant No.1 at Police Station, Sakkardara for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal

¶11

¶12

Code. It is the case of the applicants that they have resolved the disputes amongst themselves and both of them are staying together since 9^th February, 2007. This fact has been confirmed by the applicants who are present in person. Since the dispute between the parties have been settled the applicants pray that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant no.1 at the instance of applicant no.2 be quashed in the interest of justice since the parties want to leave peacefully henceforth.

¶13

Mr. Sirpurkar, has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi and others .vs. State of Haryana and another (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386). In Joshi's case (supra) the Apex Court has observed thus;

¶14

“There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

¶16

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code”.

¶17

In view of the clear ratio laid down in Joshi's case (supra) and considering the factual situation in the present case I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which criminal proceedings against the applicant no.1 deserves to be quashed and set aside by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

In the result, therefore, the application is allowed. Criminal Case No. 2342/2006 pending against the Applicant No.1. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.1, Nagpur is quashed and set aside.

¶19

Judge

¶20

patle

Sandeep S/O Shankar Sorte and Anor. v. the State of Mah.Thr.Pso,Sakkardara,Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep S/O Shankar Sorte and Anor. v. the State of Mah.Thr.Pso,Sakkardara,Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Shankar Hadge and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thru. P.S.O.

Yashwant Ramkrushna Meshram Vs State of Maha. Thru. Police Station and Anor.

Dinesh S/O Gunwant Tule Vs State of Mah. Thru P.S.O.

Nandkishor S/O Rambhau Choudhary Vs Balabhau S/O Ramchandraji Ganorkar

Nandksihor S/O Rambhau Choudhary Vs Balabhau Ramchandraji Ganorkar

Samir S/O Anandrao Kshirsagar Vs the State of Mah. Thru P.S.O. P.S. Ganeshpeth