Allowed

Roshan S/O Ramesh Jajoo and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016APPLN/6453/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act due to settlement between parties, allowing the respondent to withdraw the security deposit and holding further investigation to be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing Crime No. 559/2015 is quashed and set aside. The amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- and interest accrued thereon is permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant no. 1.

Roshan S/O Ramesh Jajoo and Others Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6453 OF 2016

¶5

1. Roshan s/o. Ramesh Jajoo, Age 33 Years, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. Flat No.15, Saideo Society, Gangapur Road, Nashik, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.

¶6

2. Ramesh s/o. Ramnath Jajoo, Age 69 years, Occu. R/o. as above.

¶7

3. Asha w/o. Ramesh Jajoo, Age 63 years, Occ. Household, R/o. as above.

¶8

4. Bhushan s/o. Ramesh Jajoo, Age 39 years, Occu. Salaried, R/o. 27, Shree Ramchandra Samiti Housing Society, Sharanpur Road, Near Telephone Office, Nashik.

¶9

5. Swati Bhushan Jajoo, Age 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o. as above.

¶10

6. Suvarna w/o Vivek Rathi, Age 41 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Flat No.103, Divine Shelter, Thatte Nagar, Nashik. APPLICANTS

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad.

¶13

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶14

¶15

2. Sau. Dipali w/o. Roshan Jajoo, [Dipali d/o. Dilipkumar Malani, Age 28 years, Occ. Household, R/o. at present residing at RL 93, Bajajnagar, MIDC Waluj, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS

¶16

...

¶17

Mr.Nitin T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for the
applicants
Mrs. R.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
Mr.S.R.Yadav Lonikar, APP for Respondent –
State

¶18

...

¶19

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6596 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6453 OF 2016

¶20

Dipali Roshan Jajoo
@ Dipali d/o. Dilipkumar Malani
Age: 28 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. At present residing at RL 93,
Bajajnagar, MIDC, Waluj,

¶21

Taluka & District Aurangabad APPLICANTS

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

1. Roshan Ramesh Jajoo, Age 32 Years, Occu.Self Employed, R/o. Flat No.15, Saideo Society, Gangapur Road, Nashik, Taluka and District Nashik.

¶24

2. Ramesh s/o. Ramnath Jajoo, Age 69 years, Occu. Self Employed,

¶25

3. Asha w/o. Ramesh Jajoo, Age 52 years, Occu. Household,

¶26

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶27

¶28

4. Bhushan Ramesh Jajoo Age 39 years, Occu. Service

¶29

5.Swati Bhushan Jajoo,
Age 35 years, Occ. House wife
R/o. Shree Ramchandra Sumiti Housing
Society, Sharanpur Road, Near Telephone
Office, Nashik.

¶30

6.Suvarna Vivek Rathi
Age 41 years, Occ. House wife,
R/o. Flat No.103, Divine Shelter,
Thatte Nagar, Nashik

¶31

7.State of Maharashtra
Through Investigating Officer
of Waluj MIDC Police Station,
Waluj, Aurangabad.RESPONDENTS

¶32

...

¶33

Mrs. R.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant
Mr.Nitin T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for the
respondent nos. 1 to 6.

¶34

Mr.S.R.Yadav Lonikar, APP for Respondent –
State

¶35

...

¶36

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶37

 K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶38

Date: 08.12.2016

¶39

PER COURT:

¶40

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing

¶41

for the applicants, learned APP appearing for

¶42

the respondent – State and the learned

¶43

counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

¶44

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶45

¶46

2.In the morning session, this Court

¶47

passed the following order:

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Respondent no.2 submit that, the parties have settled the dispute and on the basis of the said settlement even the decree of dissolution of marriage is passed by the Competent Court. They further submit that in view of the said settlement, the Respondent no.2 does not want to proceed with the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 559 of 2015 registered with Police Station, M.I.D.C. Waluj, Aurangabad under Sections 498-A, 315, 323, 107, 109, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶49

2. The applicant no.1 and

¶50

respondent no.2 to file the terms of settlement duly verified before the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court during the morning session.

¶51

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶52

¶53

The learned Registrar (Judicial) to prepare the report and submit the same before this Court at 2.30 p.m.

¶54

3. Pursuant to the said order,

¶55

applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 appeared
before the learned Registrar (Judicial) and
the learned Registrar (Judicial) has
submitted report. On perusal of the said

¶56

report, it appears that applicant no.1 and

¶57

respondent no.2 produced the proof of
identity. The parties are identified by the

¶58

learned Advocates appearing for them. It is
stated in the said report that, the parties
havesettledthetermsof

¶59

settlement / compromise with free wish and
will, without there being any pressure of

¶60

whatsoever nature. The said report is
accompanied with the terms of compromise.

¶61

The said report along with copies of identity

¶62

proof and terms of compromise is taken on

¶63

record. The terms of compromise annexed with

¶64

¶65

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶66

the said report are marked ‘X’ for

¶67

identification purpose.

¶68

4.The applicants and respondent no.2
are present. On interacting, applicant no.1
and respondent no.2 stated that, the terms of
compromise have been arrived at between the
parties with free will and without any
coercion or pressure.

¶69

5.The learned counsel appearing for

¶70

the applicants, on instructions, submits that
applicant no.1 has already deposited an
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty lacs
only] in the registry and the applicants have
no objection for withdrawing the said amount
by respondent no.2.

¶71

6.Upon perusal of the averments in the
application, annexures thereto and the terms
of compromise, we are of the opinion that,
the further continuation of the investigation
on the basis of the F.I.R. bearing Crime

¶72

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶73

¶74

No.559/2015 registered with MIDC Waluj Police
Station, Aurangabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 315, 323,
107, 109, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act would be abuse of process of
law and exercise in futility.

¶75

The learned counsel appearing for

¶76

the applicants, on instructions, has already
submitted that the applicants have no
objection for withdrawal of the amount by
respondent no.2. In that view of the matter,
respondent no.2 is permitted to withdraw the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty lacs
only] and the interest accrued thereon.

¶77

7.In the light of the discussion in

¶78

the foregoing paragraphs, keeping in view the
exposition of law in the case of Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and another1the F.I.R.

¶79

bearing Crime No.559/2015 registered with 1 2012 [4] Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 428

¶80

6453.2016Cri.Appln.+.odt

¶81

¶82

MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
315, 323, 107, 109, 504, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed and set
aside.

¶83

8.The Criminal Application No.6596 of
2016 is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B.

¶84

9.Both Criminal Applications stand
disposed of in above terms.

¶85

Sd/Sd/-

¶86

 [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶87

DDC

Roshan S/O Ramesh Jajoo and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan S/O Ramesh Jajoo and Others 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

Balasaheb S/O. Shankar Punde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmibai Uttam Bansode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swati W/O. Parmeshwar Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafique S/O Babu Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryakant Chandrakant Gade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Dipali Roshan Jajoo @ Dipali D/O Dilipkumar Malani Vs Roshan Ramesh Jajoo and Others