Allowed

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

Bombay HC23 Jan 2023APL/869/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed two mutually filed FIRs involving a husband and wife citing inherent jurisdiction. Having settled amicably and obtained a mutual divorce decree, the parties consented to the withdrawal of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Applications allowed; FIRs Crime No. 0299/2018 and Crime No. 0377/2019 quashed and set aside.

Rupesh Babnrao Kapse Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 29-J-APL-869-20.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 869 OF 2020

¶4

APPLICANT :Mr. Rupesh Babanrao Kapse,
Age about 35 years, Occ. Service,
Permanent R/o Plot No.45,
Shyam Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur.

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra Through P. S. O. Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.

¶7

2. Mrs. Roshni Rupesh Kapse, Age 35 Years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No. 127, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur.

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1130 OF 2019

¶10

APPLICANTS : 1.Sameer S/o Motiram Pakhare,
Aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Service,
(Police Constable Nagpur Rural),
R/o Plot No. 127, Near Ram Mandir,
Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur.
Mob. No. 8805023935.

¶11

2. Ramchandra S/o Sampatrao Dandekar, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Labourer, R/o Devada (Bk), Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.

¶12

3. Smt. Roshni W/o Rupesh Kapse, Aged about 32 yrs, occ. Private Business, R/o Shyamnagar, Plot No.45-B, Hudkeshwar Road, Near St. Paul School, Nagpur.

¶13

2 29-J-APL-869-20.doc

¶14

4. Dhiraj S/o Sunil Uikey, Aged about 25 yrs, Occ. Student, R/o Shyamnagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur.

¶15

5. Suraj S/o Bharat Kawade, Aged about 24 yrs, Occ. Student, R/o Pipla, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur.

¶16

V E R S U S

¶17

NON-APPLICANTS :1. State of Maharashtra

¶18

 Through P. S. O., P. S.
 Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.

¶19

2. Rupesh S/o Babanrao Kapse, Aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Service, R/o 164, Imperian Town 2, Kothewada, Tah. Hingna, Distt. Nagpur.

¶20

Ms. Vaishali Khadekar, Advocate for applicant in APL No.869/2020 and
for respondent No.2 in APL No.1130/2019.

¶21

Shri Shashibhushan Wahane, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in APL
No.869/2020 and for applicants in APL No.1130/2019.

¶22

CORAM:-VINAY JOSHI AND

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

1. Both applications are for seeking to quash respective

¶26

First Information Reports. Basically, it is a dispute between
husband and wife.

¶27

2.Admit. With the consent of both sides, matter is taken

¶28

up for final hearing.

¶29

3 29-J-APL-869-20.doc

¶30

3.Applicant of Criminal Application (APL) No.869/2020
is husband whilst applicants in Criminal Application (APL)
No.1130/2019 are wife and her relatives. Earlier, wife has filed
FIR bearing Crime No.0299/2018 with Hudkeshwar Police Station
against her husband for the offence punishable under Sections
448, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As against this,
husband has filed FIR bearing Crime No.0377/2019 against his
wife, brother-in-law, uncle and two others.

¶31

4.By virtue of different orders of this Court, charge sheets
have not been filed in either of the proceedings. Both parties have
approached this Court for quashing of respective FIRs by invoking
inherent jurisdiction of this Court. During the pendency of these
applications, the couple has settled the dispute amicably out of the
Court. They decided to severe the matrimonial ties and jointly
applied for mutual divorce in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

¶32

5.Beside other terms, they have agreed to assist each
other for quashing respective First Information Reports. Those
terms of settlement have been filed in the Family Court on the
basis of which a Decree of Divorce has been passed on
17/02/2021. As per the agreed terms, the parties do not wish to
prosecute the respective criminal cases.

¶33

4 29-J-APL-869-20.doc

¶34

6.Initial dispute was in between the couple, which was
set at rest by getting divorce by mutual consent. In order to
maintain harmony between two families, they decided to
withdraw the cases lodged against each other. Both Informants i.e.
Roshni and Rupesh are present in Court, who are identified by
their respective counsel. They have agreed that the matter is
settled and they do not want to prosecute against each other.

¶35

7.Since the matter is settled, there is no purpose in
requiring the parties to face the trial, as the chances of conviction
are remote and bleak. This Court can invoke its inherent
jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of Court, or to secure
the ends of justice. In the circumstances, as the matter is settled,
we deem it appropriate to exercise our inherent jurisdiction.

¶36

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

¶37

i] Both applications are allowed.

¶38

ii]Crime No.0299/2018 registered by Roshni with
Police Station, Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Sections 448, 294, 506(B) of
the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.0377/2019
registered at the instance of husband - Rupesh with the
Police Station, Hudkeshwar, Dist. Nagpur for the
offence punishable under Sections 380, 427 and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed and set
aside.

¶39

5 29-J-APL-869-20.doc

¶40

iii]Both applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶41

iv]The applications pending, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.

¶42

[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]

¶43

 [VINAY JOSHI, J.]

¶44

Choulwar

¶45

VITHAL Digitally signed byVITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWAR Date: 2023.01.25 CHOULWAR 19:16:29 +0530

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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