Quashed

Nikhil S/O Mohan Kodalkar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso , Buldhana City, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Bombay HC24 Apr 2024APL/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC after finding that the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial differences and agreed to divorce by mutual consent. The Court held that continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court given the settlement and the nature of the offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR Crime No.849/2022 registered with Police Station Buldhana City.

Nikhil S/O Mohan Kodalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:4816-DB

Judgment

910 apl 619.24+1

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 619/2024
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 558/2023
******
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 619/2024

¶7

Nikhil s/o Mohan Kodalkar,
aged about 29 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o. Kodalkar Hospital, Link Road, Pandharpur,
Tq. Pandharpur, Distl Solapur (Husband).

¶8

... APPLICANT

¶9

VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Buldhana City, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.
2.Dr. Chaitali w/o Nikhil Kodalkar,
Aged about 28 yrs., Occ. Doctor,
Serving as a Medical Officer Gynec
Department, Government Hospital
at Khamgaon, R/o. Tulsi Nagar,
Sagwan Area, Buldhana, Tq. &
Dist. Buldhana (wife)

¶10

...NON-APPLICANTS

AND

Judgment

910 apl 619.24+1

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 558/2023

¶16

`1. Mohan Vithoba Kodalkar,` `Aged about 64 yrs., Occ. Retired` `Govt. Servant,`
`2. Sau. Shakuntala w/o Mohan Kodalkar,` `Aged about 57 yrs., Occ. Household,`
`3. Mahesh s/o. Mohan Kodalkar,` `Aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Medical` `Practitioner (Doctor),`
`All 1 to 3 are R/o. Gaurimani Bunglow,` `Shiv-Parvati Nagar, Link Road, Pandhapur,` `Tq. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur.`
`4. Sau. Gauri w/o Mangesh Patil,` `Aged about 39 yrs., Occ. Medical` `Practitioner (Doctor), R/o. Nillkanth` `Hospital, Kalthan Road, Indapur,` `Tq. Indapur, Dist. Pune.`
`...APPLICANTS` `VERSUS`
`1. State of Maharashtra,` `through Police Station Officer,` `Buldhana City, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.`
`2. Dr. Chaitali w/o Nikhil Kodalkar,` `Aged about 28 yrs., Occ. Doctor,` `Serving as a Medical Officer Gynec` `Department, Government Hospital` `at Khamgaon, R/o. Tulsi Nagar,` `Sagwan Area, Buldhana, Tq. &` `Dist. Buldhana.` `...NON-APPLICANTS`

Judgment

910 apl 619.24+1

Mr. P.D. Mane and Mr. C.R. Sharma, Advocates for applicants.
Mr. S.V. Narale, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶21

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND
 MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
 DATE: 24.04.2024.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶23

Heard.

¶24

2. Admit .

¶25

3.Both applications are similarly seeking to quash First
Information Report (‘FIR’) in Crime No.849/2022 registered with
Police Station Buldhana City, District Buldhana for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of mutual
settlement.

¶26

4.Criminal Application (APL) No. 619/2024 has been filed
by husband, whilst Criminal Application (APL) No. 558/2023 has
been filed by the relatives of husband similarly seeking to quash FIR.
The couple got married on 21.12.2021. After marriage, the

¶27

Judgment 910 apl 619.24+1

¶28

¶29

informant started to cohabit with her husband and in-laws. Within
few days, the differences arose and due to matrimonial harassment,
informant returned to her maternal house and then lodged report. In
Criminal Application (APL) No. 558/2023, interim relief has been
granted by which investigation was permitted to go on, but directed
for not to file charge-sheet without obtaining leave of this Court.

¶30

5.During the pendency, with the aid and intervention of
relatives and friends, the matter has been amicably settled. Both are
young having no issue from the marriage. Both found it difficult to
live together due to differences. They have mutually decided to
sever matrimonial ties in permanency. The husband has agreed to
pay total sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- towards one time maintenance. The
husband also agreed to return all household articles to the wife.

¶31

6.In pursuance of settlement, both have jointly applied to
the Family Court, Buldhana for divorce by mutual consent in terms of
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Husband has already paid
sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the wife and balance amount was agreed
to be paid at the time of decree of divorce. The wife has no objection

Judgment

910 apl 619.24+1

to quash the criminal prosecution against all the accused. Copy of
divorce petition has been tendered on record. The wife has filed her
affidavit stating about settlement and her no objection to quash the
proceeding.

¶36

7.Informant wife is present before us who has been
identified by her Advocate Mr. Kurekar. On our query, she has
accepted the settlement, particularly, she has accepted that all
articles which were agreed to be returned were already returned to
her. The husband undertakes to deposit balance amount of Rs.
22,00,000/- with the Family Court before passing of the decree
which the wife would be entitled for receive. It is matrimonial
offence which cannot be termed as heinous or antisocial. The parties
have mutually sorted differences by separating from each other for
betterment of their life. In the circumstances, continuation of
prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶37

8.In view of above, both applications are allowed. We
hereby quash and set aside FIR vide Crime No.849/2022 registered
with Police Station Buldhana City, District Buldhana for the offence

¶38

Judgment 910 apl 619.24+1

¶39

¶40

punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of mutual
settlement.

¶41

9. Applications stand disposed of in above terms.

¶42

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶43

Gohane

Nikhil S/O Mohan Kodalkar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso , Buldhana City, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil S/O Mohan Kodalkar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso , Buldhana City, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana 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

Sachin S/O Dilip Shete Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hingna Dist.Nagpur and Another

Tushar S/O Balasaheb Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. P.S.O.P.S. Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur and Another

Jayant Panjabrao Jaybhaye Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Chikhaldara Ps, Chikhaldara, Dist. Amravati and Another.

Mohan Vithoba Kodalkar and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Buldhana City, Tq. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Devendra S/O Tulshiram Sapate Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Bramhapuri Tq.Bramhapuri Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Tulshiram Domaluji Sapate Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Chimur Tah.Chimur Dist.Chandrpaur and Another