Allowed

Rushikesh S/O Sudarshan Bhidkar v. the State of Mah, Thr P.So. Karanja Distt. Washim

Bombay HC14 Jan 2022APL/472/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the application to quash an FIR registered against the husband and his parents-in-law for offences including dowry harassment and unnatural offence. The court found that the parties had amicably settled the dispute via a notarized agreement and were pursuing mutual divorce.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 0106/2019 is quashed and set aside; rule is made absolute.

Rushikesh S/O Sudarshan Bhidkar Vs the State of Mah… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

19-J-APL-472-19.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 472 OF 2019

¶5

1.Rushikesh S/o Sudarshan Bhidkar, Age about 35 years, Occ : Service,

¶6

2.Sudarshan S/o Rajaram Bhidkar, Age about 69 years, Occ : Retired.

¶7

3.Usha S/o Sudarshan Bhidkar, Age about 59 years, Occ : Household,

¶8

All are at present R/o, at Chikhali, Navsari, Gujrat.

¶9

 ... APPLICANTS

¶10

V E R S U S

¶11

1.The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Karanja, Dist. Washim.

¶12

2.Priyanka W/o Rushikesh Bhidkar, aged about 31 years, Occ-Household, R/o Vidhya Bharti Colony Karanja, Th-Karanja, Dist-Washim. ..

¶13

. NON-APPLICANTS

¶14

Shri A. S. Band, Advocate for applicants.

¶15

Mrs. M. A. Barabde, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-
applicant No.1.

¶16

Shri A. P. Tathod, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶17

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND

¶18

G. A. SANAP, JJ.

¶19

DATED : 14/01/2022

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)

¶21

1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶22

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

2 19-J-APL-472-19.odt

¶24

2.Shri A.S. Band, learned counsel is representing the
applicants, Mrs. M. A. Barabde, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor is representing the State of Maharashtra, whereas Shri
A.P. Tathod, learned counsel is representing non-applicant No.2 /
original complainant.

¶25

3.The present proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure are filed for quashing the First Information
Report and consequent registration of crime vide Crime
No.0106/2019 by Police Station Karanja, Dist. Washim for the
offence punishable under Sections 377, 498-A, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

4.The crime is registered in view of the report lodged by
non-applicant No.2.

¶27

5.The applicant No.1 is husband of non-applicant No.2,
whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3 are her parents-in-law.

¶28

6.The learned counsel for the applicants and the non-
applicants stated before the Court that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute. In view of this particular statement, the
Court is not going into the detailed allegations made in the First
Information Report.

¶29

3 19-J-APL-472-19.odt

¶30

7.The applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 are

¶31

personally present in Court. The parties have also filed pursis
along with the photocopy of Notarized document, which is in the
nature of agreement for settlement of dispute, which is taken
record and marked as Exh.“X” for the purpose of identification.
Along with the said, photocopies of the cheques are also attached.

¶32

8.This Court personally enquired with non-applicant
No.2/complainant regarding factum of settlement in between the
husband and wife. The non-applicant No.2 specifically stated
before the Court that on her own free will, the settlement had
arrived at in between the parties. In view of that, she also
accepted that she has received entire amount as agreed upon
under the agreement. It is also reported to the Court that the
parties have also filed the proceeding for mutual divorce before
the Competent Court.

¶33

9.The dispute is personal in nature in between the
husband and wife. When the parties have decided to bury their
dispute and lead their future life amicably, we are of the view that
this is a fit case wherein this Court exercises its inherent powers to

¶34

19-J-APL-472-19.odt

¶35

¶36

give the end to the prosecution which can be prejudicial to both
the parties. Hence, we pass the following order :-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i] The application is allowed.

¶39

ii]The First Information Report No. 0106/2019
registered with Karanja Police Station, Dist. Washim for
the offence punishable under Sections 377, 498-A, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside.

¶40

iii]Rule is made absolute. No costs.

¶41

 (G. A. SANAP, J.) (V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)

¶42

Choulwar

¶43

VITHAL Digitally signed by VITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWARDate: 2022.01.17 11:52:50 CHOULWAR +0530

Rushikesh S/O Sudarshan Bhidkar v. the State of Mah, Thr P.So. Karanja Distt. Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rushikesh S/O Sudarshan Bhidkar v. the State of Mah, Thr P.So. Karanja Distt. Washim

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

Sandeep S/O Purushottam Bansod Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur Tha. and Dist Nagpur and Another

Pitambar S/O Maroti Kohat and 5 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Nandanvan Ps Nagpur

Subhash Charandasji Karunik and 8 Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Yavatmal and Another

Suresh S/O. Somaji Bhoyar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its P.S.O., P.S. Gadchiroli

Giridhar S/O Digambar Tijare Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Katol, Tehsil, Katol, Distt. Nagpur. and Another

Lakshya @ Lucky S/O Sanjay Turkel Vs State Ofmah. Thr. Deputy Commissionr of Police Zone NO.2 Sitabuldi Nagpur and Another