Allowed

Abhijit S/O Machindra Patare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2019APPLN/440/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench at Aurangabad, Bombay, allowed a Criminal Application seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court observed that the dispute between the applicant and the respondent was amicably settled, and the parties have resumed cohabitation for the sake of their children. Finding that further investigation would be futile, the application was allowed as an exercise in protection against abuse o

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; Rule made absolute to quash the FIR.

Abhijit S/O Machindra Patare Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No.440/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.440 OF 2019

¶5

Abhijeet s/o Machindra Patare, Age 40 years, Occu. Service, R/o Kanda Market, Ward No.6, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar

¶6

... APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through the P.S.I. Police Station, Shrirampur City Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, Hgih Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)

¶9

Usha w/o Abhijit Patare, Age 30 years, Occu. Household, R/o Kanda Market, Ward No.6, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Shri V.R. Langhe, Advocate for applicant Shri D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Shri S.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 25th February, 2019

¶13

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

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up

¶15

for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel appearing

¶16

Cri. Appln. No.440/2019

¶17

¶18

for the parties.

¶19

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, the respondent No.2 has filed affidavit. It is stated in the said affidavit that the applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute. The respondent No.2, after such amicable settlement, has again joined the company of the applicant and started peacefully cohabitation, keeping in view the future of the children to have the further peaceful life in the future.

¶20

The applicant and respondent No.2 are present before this Court, identified by their respective Advocates. The applicant has assured this Court that henceforth he will take care that no such alleged incident would take place in future and the applicant and respondent No.2 will lead further peaceful married life in future.

¶21

The respondent No.2 has also stated that, since the applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute and she started again residing with the applicant, she has no objection for quashing the F.I.R.

¶22

It appears that, the incident is arising out of the petty quarrels, as stated by respondent No.2 in her affidavit. Since the applicant and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute and started residing together and have assured this Court that

¶23

Cri. Appln. No.440/2019

¶24

¶25

they will lead peaceful married life in future, keeping in view the interest of the children, no purpose will be served by further investigation of the aforesaid crime and such further investigation or continuation of proceedings arising out of aforesaid crime would be an exercise in futility and would amount to abuse of the process of law/ Court. Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr. reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , the application deserve to be allowed.

¶26

In the result, in the light of the discussion in foregoing paras, the application succeeds. Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶27

Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

R.G. AVACHAT

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

S.S. SHINDE JUDGE

¶31

fmp/

Abhijit S/O Machindra Patare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit S/O Machindra Patare 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Azharuddin Abdul Matin Farooqui and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil S/O. Jijaji Ubale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maya W/O. Kishandas Rijwani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin S/O. Narsingrao Jethewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.