Allowed

Palash S/O Purushottam Darokar and 4 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso Ps Sitabuldi Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC22 Jul 2022APL/947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Nagpur allowed a criminal application to quash an FIR and charge-sheet under Sections 498A and the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The court found the matrimonial dispute extinguished by a divorce decree by mutual consent and a subsequent settlement reached between the parties.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 30.6.2021 and charge-sheet dated 6.10.2021 issued against the applicants under Sections 498A IPC and the Prevention of Atrocities Act are quashed and set aside.

Palash S/O Purushottam Darokar and 4 Others Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

APL.947.22

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 947/2022

¶5

Palash s/o Purushotam Darokar and others ..Applicants versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & another ..Respondents ….......................................................................................................... Mr. R.R.Prajapati, Advocate for Applicants

¶7

Mr. M.J.Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 Ms. Renuka Sirpurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & G.A. SANAP, JJ DATED : 22^nd July, 2022.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Perused the Application and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent No.2. We have also gone through the judgment and order dated 13^th June, 2022 delivered in a petition filed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Nagpur.

¶12

The judgment of the Family Court shows that now the marriage between the applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 has been dissolved by the decree of divorce passed on the basis of mutual consent of the parties to the marriage. The allegations made

¶13

APL.947.22

¶14

¶15

in the FIR indicate that there was an internecine matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 on one hand and respondent No.2 on the other, the heat of which was also felt by the applicant Nos.2,3,4 and 5. But now with the dissolution of the marriage and also the withdrawal of the allegations by respondent no.2, the matrimonial dispute has been virtually extinguished, and now there is also settlement reached between the parties. In any case, the dispute does not have and can never have any public dispute characteristic. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the Application.

¶16

Apart from what is stated above, the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 who are personally present before the Court and who have been identified by their learned counsel and also the learned counsel for respondent no.2 have stated that the settlement has been reached between the parties amicably and voluntarily.

¶17

The learned APP submits that an appropriate order in the matter be passed.

¶18

In view of the above, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) which reads as under:-

¶19

(i) Quash and set aside the FIR lodged by the nonapplicant no.2 under section 498A, 323, 294, 504, 506, 34 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of Prevention of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶20

APL.947.22

¶21

¶22

(Atrocity) Act with the non-applicant no.1 against applicant No.1 to 5 on 30.6.2021 bearing FIR No. 282/2021 and final charge-sheet dt. 6.10.2021 bearing No. 82/2021, registered as Special Case no.560/2021 (Annexure A) pending before learned District Judge-10 and ASJ Nagpur.”

¶23

[G.A. SANAP, J.] [SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

¶24

sahare

¶25

Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location: Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:52

Palash S/O Purushottam Darokar and 4 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso Ps Sitabuldi Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palash S/O Purushottam Darokar and 4 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso Ps Sitabuldi Nagpur and Another

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

Raja @ Amar S/O Dilip Parteki and Another Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ambazari Nagpur

Shaikh Mohasin Shaikh Pashu Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Risod, Tah. Risod, Dist. Washim and Another

Bhavan S/O Mohan Gedam Vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and Another

Kartik Jogendar Pal Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Maha., Mumbai and Others

Manoj S/O Suresh Shivarkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hingna Nagpur

Atul Keshaorao Bodkhe Vs Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Thr. Its Registrar, Amravati and Others