Allowed

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2021WP/150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed two writ petitions seeking quashment of an FIR registered under IPC Section 498-A and related sections. The court held that since the petitioner and the complainant resolved their marital discord and resumed cohabitation during the pendency, continuing the prosecution would be counter-productive and serve no fruitful purpose. Consequ

What did the court decide?

FIR No.326 of 2017 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

CRIWP150-2018+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 150 OF 2018

¶6

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare Aged 33 years, Occu. Service

¶7

Saroja Kakasaheb Waghmare Aged 53 years, Occu. Housewife

¶8

Kakasaheb Waghmare Aged 64 years, Occu. Retired

¶9

Rakesh Kakasaheb Waghmare Aged 28 years, Occu. Service All currently residing at A-204, Shrisharanam CHS, Patalipada, Thane (West).

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Maharashtra through Khadakpada Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶13

Mrs. Jyoti Ravindra Waghmare Aged 28 years, Occu. Housewife, Residing at Mangesh Shrushti CHS, B- wing, Room No.905, Near Vasant Park, Vasant Valley Road, Khadakpada, Kalyan, Thane.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

WITH

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.2302 OF 2018

¶17

Rachana Apraj Suryawanshi 12/A, Sulashi Society, Near Chaitanya Health Club, Rambagh Colony, Anand Nagar, Kothrud, Pune.

¶18

...Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State of Maharashtra through Khadakpada Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶21

1/5

¶22

CRIWP150-2018+.DOC

¶23

Mrs. Jyoti Ravindra Waghmare Aged 28 years, Occu. Housewife, Residing at Mangesh Shrushti CHS, B- wing, Room No.905, Near Vasant Park, Vasant Valley Road, Khadakpada, Kalyan, Thane. ...Respondents

¶24

Mr. Amar Gharte, i/b Ms. Shruti More, for the Petitioner in both petitions. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Rahul P. Raut, for Respondent no.2.

¶25

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED: 5^th AUGUST, 2021.

¶26

JUDGMENT:- PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

¶27

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

¶28

These petitions are fled to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR No.326 of 2017, registered at Khadakpada Police Station, Kalyan, District Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (“the Penal Code”) lodged by Mrs. Jyoti Waghmare – respondent no.2, and the consequential proceedings.

¶29

The marriage of Mr. Ravindra – petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No. 150 of 2018 and Mrs. Jyoti – respondent no.2, was

¶30

2/5

¶31

CRIWP150-2018+.DOC

¶32

solemnized on 22^nd February, 2015. The petitioner nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.150/2018 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2302/2018 are the relatives of Mr. Ravindra.

¶33

The marital life of Mr. Ravindra and Mrs. Jyoti was afficted with discord. Eventually Mrs. Jyoti lodged a report against the petitioners with Khadakpada Police Station leading to registration of CR No.326 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code.

¶34

Mr. Gharte, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raut, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 – Mrs. Jyoti, in both the petitions, make a joint statement that during the pendency of the petitions, the marital discord has been resolved. Petitioner no.1 Ravindra and respondent no.2 – Mrs. Jyoti have resumed cohabitation. Respondent no.2 has fled an affdavit.

¶35

Mr. Ravindra and Mrs. Jyoti appeared before this Court. We have interacted with them. Mrs. Jyoti – the frst informant, respondent no.2 in both the petitions, informed the Court that during the pendency of these petitions, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. She and Mr. Ravindra have been cohabiting together since one year.

¶36

3/5

¶37

CRIWP150-2018+.DOC

¶38

Respondent no.2 submitted that she has sworn an affdavit on her own volition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affdavit read as under:

¶39

“ 2 . I say that, myself and petitioners have settled the dispute between us amicably and we are staying together from last 1 year. I say that as we are living happily together, I have also withdrawn the Application under Domestic Violence fled by myself against my husband and in-laws. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-A is the copy of order dated 15/02/2020 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan.

¶40

3 . I say that in these circumstances I have no objection to grant the relief sought by applicants herein in present Criminal Writ Petition. I say that I have no objection to quash and set aside C.R.No.326 of 2017 dated 30/10/2017 registered with Khadakpada Police station.

¶41

4 . I say that in view of the above settlement, if in case in future any complaint/dispute arise pertaining to the said F.I.R. No.326 of 2017, I say and submit that I shall fully cooperative with the accused and will gave no-objection to withdraw the same.”

¶42

In view of the fact that the petitioner no.1 Ravindra and respondent no.2 have resolved the dispute and resumed the cohabitation, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. As the cohabitation is restored, continuation of the prosecution would be counter productive. In any event, respondent no.2 Mrs. Jyoti would not support the prosecution and, resultantly, the likelihood of the prosecution ending in a conviction is extremely remote. In this backdrop, the continuation of the prosecution would put unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system.

¶43

4/5

¶44

CRIWP150-2018+.DOC

¶45

Since the petitioner no.1 Ravindra and respondent no.2

¶46

Jyoti have appeared before the Court together and made a joint statement that they have put an end to marital discord and have been cohabiting since last one year, in our view, it would be expedient to quash the prosecution to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Lest, not only the petitioners but respondent no.2 would suffer a grave prejudice.

¶47

Hence, the following order:

¶48

: ORDER :

¶49

(i) The petitions stand allowed.

¶50

(ii) FIR No.326 of 2017, registered at Khadakpada Police Station, Kalyan, District Thane, and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom stand quashed and set aside.

¶51

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶52

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

¶53

5/5

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit S Kamble Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Prabhakar @ Bablu Ashok Polkam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Nanku Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohsin Haider Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manmohan Gopiram Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.