Allowed

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2017APPLN/2784/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR under Section 498-A IPC. The court accepted the voluntary amicable settlement between the parties and held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 1154/2016 under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC registered at Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad.

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others Vs the State… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 CriApln 2784/2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2784 OF 2017

¶5

`1`	`Dilip` `S/o` `Matsendrarao`	`APPLICANTS`
	`Kandharkar, Age 65 Years,` `Occupation Retired, Resident of` `Sansardeep 422, N-3, CIDCO,` `Aurangabad`
`2`	`Ranjana W/o Dilip Kandharkar,` `Age` `60` `Years,` `Occupation` `Retired, Resident of as above`
`3`	`Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar, Age` `31 Years, Occupation Service,` `Resident of as above`
	`At present – Capital One – 77` `West Wacker, Drive – Chicago –`
	`Illinios 60601, Age 63 Years,` `Occupation Pensioner, Resident` `of Audumber Colony, Lane No.2,` `Papade Wasti, Phursungi, Pune`
`4`	`Jayant Baride, Aged 72 Years,` `Occupatiion Doctor, Resident of` `Osmanpura, Aurangabad`

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

1The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS
Through its Home Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

2 CriApln 2784/2017

¶9

2The Police Inspector
3Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar,
Age30Years,Occupation
Service, Resident of at Post
Vilas Nilengekar, House No.100,
Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad

¶10

Ms. Anuja Kannadkar, Advocate for the Applicants

¶11

Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. R.G. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶12

 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2017

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : S.S. SHINDE,J.] :-

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the parties.

¶16

2.The affidavit which is placed on record by
the applicant Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar and
respondent No.3 Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar is
verified.

¶17

3 CriApln 2784/2017

¶18

3.The applicant Sanket S/o Dilip Kandharkar and
respondent No.3 Harshada W/o Sanket Kandharkar are
present before this Court. It is stated in the
affidavit that it is their voluntary act and without
any coercion they agreed for the settlement in terms
of averments made in the affidavit and respondent No.3
has no objection to quash the First Information
Report. The said affidavit is filed on record, which
is marked as 'Exh.X' for the purpose of
identification. The amicable settlement is taken place
between applicant and respondent No.3, as mentioned
above.

¶19

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, has taken a view that if the parties have amicably settled the dispute voluntarily and if the offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment or under the Special Act like the Prevention of Corruption Act etc. in that case, in order to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, the High Court

¶20

4 CriApln 2784/2017

¶21

while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR or the charge-sheet as the
case may be.

¶22

5.In order to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of process of Law, we accept the
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.
Hence, we pass the following order :-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(i)Criminal Application is allowed.

¶25

(ii)F.I.R. bearing No. 1154/2016, dated 5th

¶26

November, 2016, under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, registered with Mukundwadi Police
Station, Taluka and District Aurangabad

¶27

is quashed and set aside.

¶28

(iii)Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶29

5 CriApln 2784/2017

¶30

(iv)Criminal Application stands disposed of

¶31

accordingly.

¶32

( S.M. GAVHANE, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )

¶33

SRM/3/8/17

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip S/O. Matsendrarao Kandharkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Mahadeo @ Mahadu Narayan Kale (C-8251) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Kachru Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay S/O. Basweshwar Lamture and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gunwant@Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra

Devidas S/O. Baburao Gavai and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gunwant @ Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Vs the State of Maharashstra