Quashed

Ratankumar Ranaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2010APPLN/3500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the applicant sought quashing of an FIR and related sessions case arising from a domestic dispute. Noting an amicable settlement with consent terms and maintenance payment, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

C.R.No. I-22 of 2010 and Sessions Case No.150 of 2010 are quashed and the application disposed of.

Ratankumar Ranaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

5.cr appln 3500-10.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3500 OF 2010

¶5

Ratankumar Ranaware

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Vs

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sooraj Hulke for the Applicant

¶11

Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶13

DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER,2010.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original
accused and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 1-
original complainant is present in person.

¶16

2The applicant-original accused is seeking quashing of
C.R.No. I-22 of 2010 of Murbad Police Station and the
proceedings relating thereto being Sessions Case No.150 of
2010 which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan

¶17

3.Respondent no. 2 was married to the applicant.
Thereafter, some dispute arise between the parties, hence
respondent no. 2 went to reside with her parents. She also

¶18

¶19

5.cr appln 3500-10.doc

¶20

filed application for maintenance in the Court at Murbad. On
4th February 2010, when she was returning back from the
Murbad Court, at that time, her husband and son came near
her on motorcycle. Her husband gave her kick due to which
she fell and she sustained injuries. Hence, she lodged FIR
at Murbad Police Station which was numbered as I-22 of 2010.
The case is under Sections 308, 325 and 323 of IPC.

¶21

4.Respondent No.2 who is present in the Court states
that the dispute has been amicably settled between the
parties and the case be quashed. She also filed consent
terms to that effect. Further Respondent no. 2 states that
today she has received a demand draft bearing no. 836631
dated 28th September 2010 drawn in her favour on Bank of
Maharasthra, Kopargaon Branch in the sum of Rs. 49,000/- and
cash amount of Rs. 1000/- from the Applicant. The applicant
has also filed an undertaking in this Court that he will
provide monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to respondent no. 2
throughout her life on or before 10th day of every month.
The undertaking given by the applicant is accepted and marked
'X' for identification.

¶22

5. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 2008 SC 1969 , it is observed as follows:

¶23

¶24

5.cr appln 3500-10.doc

¶25

"We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable
that in disputes where the question involved is of
a purely personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even
in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the 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. This is a
common sense approach to the matter based on ground
of realities and bereft of the technicalities of
the law".

¶26

6In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977
Cr.L.J. 1125the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power,
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power
is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to

¶27

¶28

5.cr appln 3500-10.doc

¶29

degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶30

7.The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the
present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion,
there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by
respondent no. 2 should not be quashed. Thus, in view of
above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement
between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and
proceedings relating thereto.

¶31

8. In the result, C.R. No. I-22 of 2010 of Murbad Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 150 of 2010 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan are quashed.

¶32

9. Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶33

[SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶34

¶35

5.cr appln 3500-10.doc

¶36

Ratankumar Ranaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratankumar Ranaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahdeo Dattu Esapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. Vs Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh and Anr.