Allowed

Vijay Kundalik Kulal and Others v. Santoshi Vijay Kulal @ Wankhade and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2017WP/287/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for matrimonial disputes involving marital discord and alleged casteist remarks, following a lump-sum settlement and voluntary withdrawal of related civil cases by the respondent wife.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Special Atro. Case No. 13 of 2013 are quashed and set aside; proceedings under the DV Act and subsistence allowance are withdrawn.

Vijay Kundalik Kulal and Others Vs Santoshi Vijay Kulal @… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

287.17WP(1)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 287 OF 2017

¶5

1. Mr. Vijay Kundalik Kulal Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri.,

¶6

2. Mr. Kundalikrao Rambhau Kulal Age : 66 years, Occ : Retired,

¶7

3. Mrs. Sunita Kundalikrao Kulal Age : 61 years, Occ : Housewife,

¶8

Adult, Indian Inhabitant all above
are residing at Jawahar Colony,
Mantha, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna.

¶9

4. Mr. Rajkumar Kundlikrao Kulal Age : 43 years, Occ : Service, adult residing at Yashadara Colony, Mantha Chowfully, Jalna.

¶10

5.Mrs. Chhaya Kundlik Kulal
Age : 36 years, Occ : Service,
Adult, R/o Hingoli, Tq. Hingoli,
Dist. Hingoli.

¶11

6.Mrs. Meena Kundlikrao Kulala
Age : 43 years, occ : Service, adult
residing at Ganesh Nagar Wardha
Tq. & Dist. Wardha.

¶12

..PETITIONERS

¶13

-VERSUS-

¶14

1. Mrs. Santoshi Vijay Kulal @ Wankhade Adult, Occ : Housewife, residing presently at Vanita Wankhada Chawl

¶15

287.17WP(1)

¶16

¶17

Room No.3, Nivetiya Road Vadari Pada
Malad East Mumbai – 400 097.

¶18

2. The State of Maharashtra

¶19

...

¶20

Advocate for petitioners:Mr. A.D. Aghav
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. M. Moses

¶21

...

¶22

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Dated: March 06, 2017

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER K.K. SONAWANE, J)

¶24

This is a Petition preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
and set aside the F.I.R. bearing crime No.68
of 2012 and consequently the criminal
proceedings of Special (Atro.) Case No. 13 of
2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 506,
406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶25

2.It has been contended that,
petitioner no.1 Shri Vijay Kulal is the

¶26

287.17WP(1)

¶27

¶28

husband of respondent no.1 Mrs. Santoshi
Vijay Kulal @ Wankhade. Their marriage was
performed in the year 2007 and she begotten
one daughter namely Shreya during the wedlock
from petitioner no.1 – Vijay. Thereafter,
there was marital discord in between the
spouse and their relations become strained.
Respondent no.1 make allegation about the
mental and physical torture on the part of
the husband and inmates of the matrimonial
home. Her marriage is inter-cast marriage and
she belong to Scheduled caste community. The
Respondent also made casteist allegations and
cruelty meted out by her at the hands of the
family members of the husband.

¶29

3.Pursuant to the first information
report, the police of Mantha Police Station
registered crime and set the criminal law in
motion. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the witnesses and collected
relevant documents. After completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed charge-sheet against the petitioners
before the Court of learned Special (Atro.)
Judge at Jalna. The impugned charge-sheet
registered in pursuant to the F.I.R. bearing

¶30

287.17WP(1)

¶31

¶32

Crime No. 68 of 2012 is subject matter of the
present Petition.

¶33

4.During the course of hearing, it has
been contended that, the marital discord in
between spouse has already settled amicably
in between them. The respondent had withdrawn
the proceedings filed on her behalf under the
Domestic Violence Act as well as the
proceedings seeking subsistence allowance
before the Family Court, Bandra following
compromise in between the spouses. The
parties produced the consent terms filed in
the Family Court, Bandra, in which it has
been mentioned that, the petitioner – husband
shall pay Rs.17,00,000/- to the wife
respondent no.1 towards full and final
settlement of the permanent alimony for
herself and her daughter. It was agreed to
withdraw the proceedings filed on behalf of
the wife before the Court of law. The
documents of order passed by the Family Court
is produced on record. It appears that, the
Petition filed by the wife respondent no.1
for maintenance came to be disposed of being
withdrawn. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1-wife also made statement

¶34

287.17WP(1)

¶35

¶36

that, she has also withdrawn the case filed
for subsistence allowance. Now the present
proceeding is remained to be withdrawn on
behalf of the Respondent – wife, so that, she
could withdraw the amount, which has been
deposited in the Family Court.

¶37

5.The Respondent – wife has suomoto
appeared before this Court and filed
affidavit and documents of consent terms etc.
We have verified the contents of the
affidavit and consent terms. The terms of
settlement were also verified and affirmed by
the concerned Registrar (Judicial) of this
Court, who has given specific report that,
the terms of settlement are read over and
explained to the petitioners and the
respondent no.1 in vernacular language and
they have admitted the same as true and
correct. Therefore, the Registrar (Judicial)
proceeded to verify the terms of settlement
in presence of both spouse and their counsel.
During the course of interaction, respondent
no.1 – wife has also contended that, the act
of withdrawal of the proceeding is her
voluntary act and for better future of
herself and her daughter. She settled the

¶38

287.17WP(1)

¶39

¶40

matter amicably by accepting the lumsum
amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from her husband
towards permanent alimony for herself and her
daughter. Therefore, she requested to allow
her to withdraw this proceedings. During the
course of interaction, she further stated
that, petitioner no.1 – Vijay i.e. her
husbanddepositedtheamountof
Rs.16,60,000/- in the Family Court, Bandra
and the rest of the amount she has already
received. Therefore, she has no objection for
quashing and setting aside the impugned
criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.

¶41

6.Wearecautiousthat,the

¶42

allegations against the petitioners are under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
Investigating Officer applied sections 3(1)
(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act,
against the petitioners. During the course of
interaction, Respondent no.1 – wife submitted

¶43

that, the petitioner hurled casteist
allegations towards first informant –
respondent no.1 – herein, when she was
cohabiting with husband at matrimonial home.

¶44

287.17WP(1)

¶45

¶46

But, the offence under the Atrocities Act
alleged was allegedly committed within the
four corners of the house and not within the
public view. In such circumstances, it would
cumbersome to bring home guilt of the
petitioner under Atrocities Act. Moreover,
after careful scrutiny of the first
information report, it appears that, no
ingredients of the aforesaid Act are
attracted.

¶47

7.Admittedly,thedisputeis

¶48

matrimonial in nature between the spouse.
Therefore, there would not be any impediment
to allow the parties to settle the matter
amicably and withdrawal of the proceedings by
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶49

Procedure, which would also help for better
future of informant and her daughter. The
matrimonial dispute between spouse would came
to an end and it would bring mental peace for
family members of both spouse. Hence we allow
the Petition and consequently the proceedings
in Special (Atro) Case No.13 of 2013 pending
before the District and Sessions Court, Jalna
pursuant to the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.

¶50

287.17WP(1)

¶51

¶52

68/2012 under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and
set aside.

¶53

8.As mentioned above, all the
proceedings filed on behalf of respondent
no.1 – wife are withdrawn on her part,
therefore, she is entitled to withdraw amount
of Rs.16,60,000/- deposited in the Family
Court, Bandra. She shall file the application
before the Family Court, Bandra for
withdrawal of the amount. After withdrawal of
the amount, we are in agreement with the
respondent no.1 – wife Santoshi to keep the
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit in
the name of her daughter Shreya till she
attained the age of majority. The amount so
fixed be kept in the Nationalised Bank as per
her choice. Respondent No.1 – wife Santoshi
is also entitle to receive the interest
accrued on the fixed deposit kept in the name
of her daughter. In case of any contingency
arises in future the respondent no.1 – wife
Santoshi has an liberty to move application
to the learned Family Court, Bandhra or this
Court stating therein reasonable grounds to
the satisfaction of Court for requisite

¶54

287.17WP(1)

¶55

¶56

orders for withdrawal of amount of fixed
deposit kept in the name of minor daughter
Shreya.

¶57

9.With the above observation, the
Petition stands allowed. The impugned
criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioners is quashed and set aside. Rule
made absolute accordingly.

¶58

SGA

Vijay Kundalik Kulal and Others v. Santoshi Vijay Kulal @ Wankhade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kundalik Kulal and Others v. Santoshi Vijay Kulal @ Wankhade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupkumar Gulraj Saayrani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay Prabhakar Mainur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Radhika @ Chaya W/O Babasheb Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kailas Devram Kolpe Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Others

Sau Sunita W/O Sharad Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dadarao S/O Hausaji Dakore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others