Quashed

Vijay Baburao Pingle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2018APPLN/646/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to amend the proceedings to quash an FIR and a cognicanote. Finding that the parties had amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and a divorce by mutual consent was granted, the court held that the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process and quashed them to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report bearing Crime No. I-94/2013 dated 26.08.2013 and R.C.C. 680/2015 pending before the J.M.F.C. Aurangabad are quashed and set aside.

Vijay Baburao Pingle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Apln646-14.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2014

¶4

1. Vijay Baburao Pingle ... Applicants Age 67 years, Occu: Business

¶5

2. Mrs. Rajni Vijay Pingle Age 57 years, Occu: Housewife App. 1 and 2 residing atNext to Kamshet Post Office, Shivaji Chowk, Kamshet, Taluka Mavel, Dist.Pune

¶6

3. Mrs. Poonam Amit Dhume Age 31 years, Occu: Housewife

¶7

4.Amit Ramesh Dhume
Age 33 years, Occu: Service,
App. 3 and 4 R/o Building
No.7, Flat No.501, N.C. Vihar,
Opp. Laxmi Park (1), Vartak
Nagar, Thane (West)

¶8

5.Vaibhav Vijay Pingle, Age 29
years, Ocu: Nil,
R/o A/50, Gopal Mansion,
Gurunanak Road, Bandra (WW),
Mumbai 400 050

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. State of Maharashtra

¶11

2. Inspector fo Police Begampura Police Station, Aurangabad

¶12

3. Mrs. Varsha Vaibhav Pingle ... Respondents Age 24 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o A/604 Waters Edge, Vishal Nagar, Taluka Haweli, District Pune (Wakad)Pune and R/o Plot No. 15, N-13, Vankhede Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad.

¶13

1/5

¶14

Apln646-14.odt

¶15

Mr. Ujwal S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants
Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for the Respondents State
Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶16

CORAM:T. V. NALAWADE AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE::21st June, 2018

¶17

JUDGMENT ( Per K. L. Wadane,J.):

¶18

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, the application is taken up for
final hearing.

¶19

2. After hearing both the sides for some time the

¶20

learned APP submitted that charge sheet came to be
filed on 31st March, 2014. Relief is claimed only in
respect of F.I.R. and the present proceeding was filed

¶21

on 29.01.2014. Thus, after filing of the present
proceeding, charge-sheet came to be filed. There was no
stay in the present matter. Learned counsel for the
applicants prays for granting permission to amend the
proceeding to add the relief of quashing the criminal
case itself. Permission is granted. Amendment is to be
carried out forthwith.

¶22

3. The application is filed under section 482 of the

¶23

Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of
first information report bearing Crime No. I-94/2013

¶24

2/5

¶25

Apln646-14.odt

¶26

dated 26.08.2013 registered with Begampura Police
Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. By way of amendment, the applicants
have also challenged R.C.C. 680/2015 pending before
the learned J.M.F.C., Aurangabad arising out of the
FIR No.I-94/2013 and prayed for quashing the same.

¶27

4. Respondent No. 3/original complainant lodged
first information report against the present applicants
alleging that she was married to Applicant No.5
Vaibhav. In the marriage her parents had given 25
tolas gold and Cash of Rs.11 lakhs. It was alleged
that after marriage she was treated well for some
days and thereafter the applicants accused started to
harass her on the count of dowry. Alleging ill-
treatment and harassment against the applicants, she

¶28

lodged complaint and the offence as referred above
came to be registered against the applicants accused.

¶29

5. Heard Mr. Ujwal S. Patil, learned counsel for

¶30

the applicants, Mrs D. S. Jape, APP for the
respondent State and Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, learned
counsel for respondent No.3/complainant.

¶31

3/5

¶32

Apln646-14.odt

¶33

6. Respondent No.3 i.e. original complainant has
filed an affidavit stating that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have arrived at a
compromise through the process of private negotiations
of their relatives. It is agreed between them that the
dispute is amicably settled and the complainant agreed
to withdraw the present criminal case i.e. Crime No.1-

¶34

94/2013. Copy of the consent terms which was filed
before the Family court is produced on record. In
Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit reads thus:

¶35

06. I say and submit that before registration
of the impugned crime, the Applicant
No.5/Husband had filed the Divorce Petition
bearing No. M.J. Petition No. 1695/2013 under
section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu marriage Act,
1955 before the Family Court, Bandra. As per
terms of compromise, Applicant No.5 and
respondent No.3, on 13th July, 2015, filed the
consent terms before the learned Family Court,
Bandra and as per the said consent terms the
present Respondent No.3/complainant agreed to
give consent for withdrawn and quashing of the
impugned Crime No.1-94/2013.

¶36

7. From the record, it appears that the parties

¶37

have settled the dispute amicably in the divorce
proceeding and already the decree of divorce by mutual
consent has been passed by the Family Court, Bandra. It

¶38

4/5

¶39

Apln646-14.odt

¶40

appears that the parties have decided to set at rest
the further dispute including the present criminal
proceedings.

¶41

8. In that view of the matter, in view of settled
law, in order to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent an abuse of process of law, the criminal
proceeding needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence
following order:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(1) First information report bearing Crime No. I-
94/2013 dated 26.08.2013 registered with Begampura
Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and R.C.C. 680/2015 pending
before the J.M.F.C. Aurangabad in respect of Crime
No.I-94/2013 are quashed and set aside.

¶44

(2) Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶45

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶46

JPC

¶47

5/5

Vijay Baburao Pingle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Baburao Pingle 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savita W/O. Pintu Salunke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imran S/O. Abdul Karim Tamboli and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sushantbabu Gopalkisan Maganti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Najir Shaikh Umar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hanumant S/O. Sakharam Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyajeet S/O. Machindra Gojame and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.