Allowed

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand v. State of Maha., Thr. Pso., Ps., Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and Another

Bombay HC25 Jan 2023APL/669/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal applications, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed the petitions and quashed an FIR and related criminal case. The Court relied on the settlement of the marital dispute and the subsequent divorce by mutual consent, finding it futile to continue the proceedings against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.63/2015 and the related criminal case bearing R.C.C.No.383/2021 were quashed and set aside.

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand Vs State of Maha., Thr. Pso… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 / 4 27.apl669.2021

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 669 OF 2021

¶4

Ganesh s/o Dyandeo Fand

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra, Thru. PSO, PS Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and anr.

¶7

AND

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 197 OF 2021

¶9

Prakash s/o Vitthal Umale and Ors.

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State of Maharashtra, Thru. PSO, PS Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and anr.

¶12

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶13

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶14

Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for applicants in both applications.

¶15

Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent/State in both applications.

¶16

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATE : 25.01.2023.

¶17

On oral request, Mr. Karode, learned counsel for applicants is permitted to amend the prayer clause in Criminal Application (APL) No.669/2021 to the extent of seeking relief of quashing of related criminal case bearing R.C.C.No. 383/2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon,

¶18

Prity

¶19

2 / 4 27.apl669.2021

¶20

Leave is granted as prayed for. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶21

Both applications are for quashing of FIR in Crime No.63/2015, registered with Police Station Jalamb, District – Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.669/2021 is husband whilst the applicant Nos.1 to 4 in Criminal Application (APL) No.197/2020 are nearer relatives of husband of respondent No.2 – wife.

¶23

Besides, merits of the case, it has been submitted that husband and wife have mutually settled the dispute out of Court and accordingly, have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is submitted that in divorce proceeding, respondent No.2 – wife has agreed to withdraw the concerned proceedings filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to the applicant, since the matter is settled, there is no purpose for continuing the proceedings.

¶24

Prity

¶25

3 / 4 27.apl669.2021

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that in pursuance of settlement this Court has quashed the same FIR as regards to other three relatives in Criminal Application (APL) No.41/2016 vide order dated 03.03.2021. Copy of said order has been placed on record with particular emphasise to the observations made by this Court in paragraph 5 of the order. It reveals that this Court took a note about the settlement arrived in between couple and found that it is futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the then applicant and accordingly, it has been quashed. Obviously, for the same reason, the existing applicants are also entitled for quashing of FIR against them also.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for applicants upon instructions would submit that after decree of divorce respondent No.2 (wife) has re-married with someone and residing elsewhere, perhaps that may be the reason for non-service of notice of this petition to her. It is evident from our order in Criminal Application(APL)No.41/2016 that the wife has settled the dispute, agreed to withdraw her criminal case and obtained divorce. In the

¶28

Prity

¶29

4 / 4 27.apl669.2021

¶30

circumstances, if applications are kept pending that would also amounts to abuse of the process of Court.

¶31

In view of above facts, especially taking into account settlement of dispute which is of private nature, we are inclined to exercise our inherent jurisdiction. In the circumstances, both applications are allowed.

¶32

The FIR in Crime No.63/2015 registered with Police Station Jalamb, District – Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with related criminal case bearing R.C.C.No.383/2021 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶33

Both applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE Reason: Location: Signing Date:30.01.2023 14:49

¶37

Prity

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand v. State of Maha., Thr. Pso., Ps., Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand v. State of Maha., Thr. Pso., Ps., Jalamb, Dist. Buldana 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

Ankur S/O Ganesh Gir Goswami and 4 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajura Dist.Chandrapur

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed Vs the Registrar District and Sessions Court Buldhana Tq. and Dist.Buldhana and 2 Others

Amit S/O Gajanan Gandhi Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Nagpur

Pooja W/O Pranay Bansali and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati Tq. Dist. Amravati and Anothe

Prakash S/O Vitthal Umale and 3 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jalamb Dist.Buldhana and Another

M.I.D.C. through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati Vs Jugalkishor S/O Nawalkishor Kothari and Others