Quashed

Gaurav Bhupendra Arya and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

Bombay HC23 Jan 2023APL/1219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pending criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute, the High Court quashed the FIR and related proceedings after confirming that the parties had reached a fulland-final settlement through mediation.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of FIR Crime No.0634/2019 and pending criminal case RCC No.1083/2020.

What the court decided

Gaurav Bhupendra Arya and 2 Others Vs State of Mha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 36-J-APL-1219-22.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1219 OF 2022

¶4

APPLICANTS :1. Shri Gaurav Bhupendra Arya,
 Aged about 37 years,
 Occ: Service, R/o Flat No.708,
 B wing Rachna Sayatra, Phase-II,
 Hazaripahad, Nagpur – 440001.

¶5

2. Bhupendra S/o Mohan Arya,
 Aged about 61 years,
 Occ : Retired Engineer, R/o. Dababari
 Extension, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶6

3. Mrs. Urmila W/o Bhupendra Arya,
 Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
 R/o Dadabari Extension, Kota,
 Rajasthan.

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra

¶9

 Through the Police Station Officer,
 Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati
 City, Tq. and District Amravati.

¶10

2. Mrs. Neha Gaurav Arya,
 Aged about 34 years, Occ: Teacher,
 R/o C/o Manoj Verma, Plot No.12-B,
 Ganesh Colony, Amravati, Taluka and
 District Amravati.

¶11

Dr. R. S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for Non-applicant No.1.
Shri O. A. Ghare, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.

¶12

CORAM:-VINAY JOSHI AND

¶13

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 23/01/2023.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶15

2 36-J-APL-1219-22.doc

¶16

1.Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

¶17

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

2.Since this is a matrimonial dispute, by way of
indulgence, this Court referred the matter for mediation. The
parties have appeared before the learned Mediator, whose efforts
yielded resulting into full and final settlement. The learned
Mediator has formed terms of settlement, which were mutually
agreed in between the parties. The report of learned Mediator
bears the terms as well as signatures of both the parties, which is
placed on record.

¶19

3.The non-applicant No.2 (wife) lodged a report bearing
Crime No.0634/2019 with Rajapeth Police Station, Dist. Amravati
against husband and his relatives for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and
criminal case bearing RCC No.1083/2020 is pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati.

¶20

4.As noted above, the couple has finally settled the
dispute with a view to lead peaceful life in future, as per their
choice. Both the parties have agreed before the learned Mediator

¶21

3 36-J-APL-1219-22.doc

¶22

that they would withdraw all the proceedings, which are pending
against each other. Already, husband has filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights whilst wife has filed petition seeking
decree of divorce. As per the settlement terms, they are
approaching to the Family Court for conversion of those petitions
for seeking divorce by way of mutual consent.

¶23

5.Today, the parties are present before us. Particularly,
non-applicant No.2 – wife is present who has been identified by
her counsel. She has agreed the terms of settlement which of
course, she had agreed before the learned Mediator. Particularly,
she submitted that as per the terms, she has received a Demand
Draft of Rs.27,50,000/- (Rs.Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand
only) and ornaments as per List No.1. She has specifically stated
that she does not wish to prosecute the criminal case and has no
objection for its disposal.

¶24

6.Since the parties have settled their dispute finally, there
is no purpose requiring them to face the trial. It is apparent that
the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In order to
maintain harmony, we deem it appropriate to invoke our inherent
jurisdiction.

¶25

4 36-J-APL-1219-22.doc

¶26

7. In view of the above, we pass the following order :-

¶27

I]The application is allowed.

¶28

II]FIR in Crime No.0634/2019 registered with
Police Station, Rajapeth, Dist. Amravati for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code along with pending
criminal case bearing RCC No.1083/2020 is hereby
quashed and set aside.

¶29

III]Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]

¶31

 [VINAY JOSHI, J.]

¶32

Choulwar

¶33

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR CHOULWAR Date: 2023.01.2319:19:30 +0530

Gaurav Bhupendra Arya and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Gaurav Bhupendra Arya and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Rajapeth Amravati City Tq. and Dist.Amravati 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

Santosh S/O Sevaram Rathod Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dist.Yavatmal and Another

Kaushal Maheshkumar Gupta Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps in Charge/Inspector, Ps Sita Buldi Dist.Nagpur and Another

Rajesh Govind Mandwe Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps City Kotwali, Tahsil and Dist. Amravati.

Ram S/O Rajaramji Gulhane Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Shendurjana Ghat Tq. Warud Dist.Amravati and Another

Sweta Shrikant Mamidpalliwar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Chandrapur City, Ps Chandrapur and Another

Rupesh Babnrao Kapse Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another