Quashed

Sandeep S/O Madanlal Yadav and 4 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Ajni, Dist. Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC24 Sept 2021APL/992/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Nagpur, upon hearing the applicants and the non-applicant who offered a settlement and affidavit, quashed the First Information Report registered against the applicants for matrimonial offences involving harassment and assault, citing the personal nature of the dispute and a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report No.199/2021 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 IPC is quashed and set aside against the applicants.

Sandeep S/O Madanlal Yadav and 4 Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 992 OF 2021

¶3

1.	Sandeep S/o Madanlal Yadav
	Aged about 34 years, Occ. : Service, Hawrapeth, Plot No. 54, near Hatagade Kirana Store, Nagpur
2.	Mohanlal Laxman Yadav Aged about 65 years, Occ. : Private, R/o Hawrapeth, Plot No. 54, near Hatagade Kirana Store, Nagpur
3.	Durga Mohanlal Yadav, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Housewife R/o Hawrapeth, Plot No. 54, near Hatagade Kirana Store, Nagpur	..APPLICANTS
4.	Pritesh Paramhans Yadav, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Private, R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Khanan, Nagpur
5.	Uma Pritesh Yadav, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Khanan, Nagpur
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S. Ajni, Dist. Nagpur
2.	Komal Sandeep Yadav, A/a 29 yrs. R/o Hawrapeth, Plot No. 54, near Hatagade Kirana Store, Nagpur	.. RESPONDENTS / NON- APPLICANTS

¶4

apl-992-2021-J.odt

¶5

Ms. Sheetal S. Deshpande, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant / State Mr. S.K. Sahabat Ullah, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2

¶6

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

¶7

DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2021

¶8

JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

¶9

Heard. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶10

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

¶11

Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of First Information Report No.199/2021, registered with nonapplicant No.1 – Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants physically and mentally harassed the non-applicant No.2 and assaulted her. During pendency of the investigation, the applicants and non-applicant No.2 have arrived at mutual

¶13

PAGE 2 OF 4

¶14

apl-992-2021-J.odt

¶15

settlement. The non-applicant No.2 has filed affidavit dated 27/08/2021 stating that she has no objection for quashing the First Information Report filed against the applicants. Today, the non-applicant No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated before the Court that she has no objection for quashing the First Information Report against the applicants. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has identified the nonapplicant No.2.

¶16

Having careful considered the allegations in the First Information Report, we are satisfied that the offences alleged against the applicants are personal in nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened, as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved

¶17

PAGE 3 OF 4

¶18

apl-992-2021-J.odt

¶19

can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

¶20

In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Madan

¶21

Mohan Abbot (supra), there is no impediment in quashing First Information Report against the applicants.

¶22

We, therefore, pass the following order :

¶23

First Information Report No.199/2021, registered

¶24

with non-applicant No.1 – Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside against the applicants.

¶25

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

¶26

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

JUDGE

JUDGE

MP Deshpande

PAGE 4 OF 4

Sandeep S/O Madanlal Yadav and 4 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Ajni, Dist. Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep S/O Madanlal Yadav and 4 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Ajni, Dist. Nagpur and Another

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

Nargis Sheikh Ahad and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Talegaon Tah.Arvi Dist.Wardha

Dr. Purushottam S/O. Marotrao Kalbhoot Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Wardha (City)

Shaheen Parveen Mohd. Nazim and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso., Police Station Vasant Nagar, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal

Vilas Baburao Dhole Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kotwali , Nagpur and Another

Vaishnavi Kailash Masankar and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Barshitakli, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola

Ranjana Mukunda Gedam Vs the State of Mah. Thr. New Kamptee P.S. Dist. Nagpur and Another