Amar Singh Surendra Pal Singh and Ors. Vs Preeti Amar Singh and Anr.

apl348

1

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.348 OF 2016

¶5

1 Amar Singh Surendra Pal Singh

¶6

2 Surendra Pal Singh
3 Ganga Surendra Pal Singh ...Applicants
vs.

¶7

1 Pritee Amar Singh

¶8

2 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.K.A.J.Merchant for the applicants
Ms Seema Sarnaik for the respondent No.1
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 P.D.NAIK, JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 29, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

.Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

1Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The
respondent waives service. This is an application
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings
by consent of both the parties. The FIR was lodged
at the instance of the first respondent for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said
FIR was lodged with Mira Road Police Station on 21st
August 2008 vide C.R.No.I 506 of 2008. On completing
investigation the chargesheet was filed and the
criminal proceedings are pending before the
competent Court vide C.C.No.2100 of 2008.

¶14

2 apl348

¶15

2Brief allegations in the FIR are in respect of
the domestic clashes between the parties. It is
stated that the marriage of the first respondent was
solemnised with the applicant No.1 on 21st May 2005.
The applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the first respondent. It is alleged
thatshortlyafterthemarriage,the
applicants/accused started harassing the first
respondent. They demanded money and allegedly
abused and assaulted her. A daughter has born out
of the wedlock on 23rd August 2006. The FIR further
refers to acts allegedly amounting to mental
cruelty and criminal breach of trust.

¶16

3The parties have arrived at amicable
settlement. It is pointed out by the applicants and
the first respondent that the applicant No.1 had
filed a Petition for divorce before the Family Court
viz. M.J.Petition No.A 152 of 2009. The said
petition was dismissed. Hence, the applicant No.1
preferred an Appeal before this Court. The
applicant No.1 had also preferred another appeal
against the order of maintenance. The parties filed
consent terms in the said appeal. In the said
consent terms, in clause 13, it has been
categorically mentioned that both the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and the complainant is
not interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings
against the applicant-accused. The consent terms
also refer to various clauses regarding maintenance.

¶17

4In accordance with of the said consent terms,

¶18

apl348

¶19

3

¶20

order dated 15th October 2015 has been passed in the
above referred Family Court Appeal Nos.87 and 90 of
2015 which is on record at Exihibit-B to this
application. As per the said order, decree of
divorce has been passed in M.J.Petition No.A-152 of
2009.

¶21

5We have perused the application and the
documents on record. We have gone through the
consent terms and the decree passed by this Court
vide order dated 16th October 2015. It is pointed
out by both the parties that the dispute is amicably
settled and the complainant is not interested in
pursuing the criminal proceedings against the
applicant-accused.

¶22

6It is submitted at the instance of the
complainant that she has no objection for quashing
the subject proceedings which are arising out of
C.R.NO.I506 of 2008. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances and considering the fact that the
parties have settled the dispute, we are inclined to
exercise inherent power under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Reliance is placed
on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another1
wherein it has been observed that in the disputes
which are of private nature, the High Court can
exercise inherent power under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, in the event of
such disputes being amicably settled.

¶23

1(2012) 10 SCC page 303

¶24

apl348

¶25

4

¶26

7In view of this position, we incline to allow
this application and hence, pass the following
order:

¶27

(i) Rule is made absolute;

¶28

(ii) Impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.NO.2100 of 2008 arising out of C.R.No.I 506 of 2008 are quashed and set aside;

¶29

(iii) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

(P.D.NAIK,J.)

Amar Singh Surendra Pal Singh and Ors. v. Preeti Amar Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Surendra Pal Singh and Ors. v. Preeti Amar Singh 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

Dr. Sarita Kishor Parikh and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police Vartak Nagar Police Station and 2 Ors. and Nancy Dsouza (Applicant)

Swarup Group of Industries and Anr. Vs National Agricultural Co-Op. Marketing Federation of India Ltd.

Brijesh Champalal Mundada Vs Jhunkabai Trambak Surve and Ors.

Naval Kishore Prasad and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Hemali Ravindra Konikara and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bijendra Singh Kailash Singh Vs M/S. Tainwala Builders and Developers.