Allowed

Harshad @ Harishvardhan S/O. Sureshrao Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2019APPLN/3706/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Application sought quashing of an F.I.R. following a matrimonial dispute. The High Court allowed the application, quashing the F.I.R. based on a valid compromise and amicable settlement between the parties, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R. was quashed; the Criminal Application was allowed and disposed of; investigation continued was stayed.

Harshad @ Harishvardhan S/O. Sureshrao Deshmukh and Others… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3706 OF 2018

¶3

1.Harshad @ Harshvadhan s/o
Sureshrao Deshmukh,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Student,
R/o 795, Mini Apartment,
Flat No.6, Bhandarkar Road,
Deccan, Pune

¶4

2. Sureshrao Anandrao Deshmukh, Age : 63 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Upala (M), at present resident at Ram Nagar, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad

¶5

3.Sau. Nirmala w/o Sureshrao Deshmukh,
Age : 59 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Upala (M), at present
resident at Ram Nagar, Osmanabad,APPLICANTS
District Osmanabad (Ori. Accused
Nos.1 to 3)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station, Ambad,
District JalnaRESPONDENT

¶8

2.Pruthva w/o Harshad Deshmukh,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Household,
R/o c/o Sanjay Harshe,
Saroj Building, Ambad,RESPONDENT
Tq. Ambad, District Jalna(Ori. informant)

¶9

Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. S.B. Narwade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. P.A. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶10

criapln3706-2018

¶11

¶12

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE :10th JANUARY, 2019

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.) :

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
heard finally, pursuant to the notice issued to the
respondents.

¶15

2.The terms of compromise, duly signed by the
applicants and respondent No.2, have been placed on
record. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
and respondent No.2 jointly pray for quashing the
F.I.R., in view of the terms of compromise arrived at
between the applicants and respondent No. 2.

¶16

3.The learned A.P.P., appearing for the

¶17

respondent/State, pursuant to the notice of this Court,
submits that there was an application filed earlier by
the present applicants for quashing the F.I.R. However,
the said application was rejected on merits.

¶18

4.Be that as it may. Since the applicants and

¶19

respondent No.2 have arrived at amicable settlement and
to that effect, terms of compromise have been placed on

¶20

3 criapln3706-2018

¶21

record by them, keeping in view the ratio laid down in
the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India
in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another (2012) 10 SCC 303, to meet the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of Court, the F.I.R. can
be quashed on the basis of such compromise/settlement
between the parties, arising out of matrimonial dispute.

¶22

5.We have carefully perused the terms of
compromise. It appears that already, the applicants and
respondent No.2 have filed such terms of compromise
before the Family Court, Pune. In that view of the
matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing further investigation in Crime No.63 of 2017,
registered with Police Station, Ambad, District Jalna
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
494 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
since respondent No.2 is not going to support the
allegations made in the F.I.R. and further continuation
of investigation/proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid crime would be an exercise in futility and
abuse of the process of law.

¶23

4 criapln3706-2018

¶24

6.In the light of discussion hereinabove, the

¶25

Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (C). Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

7.The parties to act on authenticated copy of

¶27

this order.

¶28

npj/criapln3706-2018

Harshad @ Harishvardhan S/O. Sureshrao Deshmukh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshad @ Harishvardhan S/O. Sureshrao Deshmukh 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

Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

The State of Mah Vs Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors.

Javed S/O. Altaf Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Navlabai S/O Gurubasappa Khajure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rekha Mallikarjun Kanmande and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others