1 APPLN4562.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4562 OF 2017
1. Mahesh Dilip Gutte,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Vidyanagar Parali-V,
Tq. Parali-V, Dist. Beed.
2. Laxmibai W/o Dilip Gutte,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Arunoday Market, Parali-V,
Dist. Beed.
3. Arun Ranba Gutte,
Age : 48 years, occu. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Parali-V, Dist. Beed.
4. Dilip Ranba Gutte,
Age : 51 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. D-1102, Sai Residency, Shewadi Belapur,
New Mumbai. … Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Officer In-chage of
Parali-V, Police Station, Dist. Beed.
2. Rutuja W/o Mahesh Gutte,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Vidyanagar Parali-V,
Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed. … Respondents
……….
Mr Balbhim R. Kedar, Advocate for the applicants
Mrs P. V. Diggikar, APP for respondent/State
Mr B. M. Dhanure, Advocate for respondent No. 2
………….
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 18.09.2017.
::: Uploaded on – 20/09/2017 22/09/2017 01:28:52 :::
2 APPLN4562.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. S. SHINDE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission
stage.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the applicants/accused taking exception
to the FIR bearing C.R. No. 219/2017 dt. 09.05.2017 registered with
Parali-V Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The application is filed
with following prayer.
“B. The criminal proceeding, bearing RCC No.
170/2017, pending on the file of Ld. JMFC Parali-V, for
offence Punishable U/s. 498 (A), 323, 504, 506 r/w Sec.
34 of IPC inclusive of FIR bearing Crime No. 219/2017,
dated 09/05/2017, registered with Parali-V Police Station
and charge-sheet bearing No. 118/2017 dated
22/07/2017, against the applicants may kindly be
quashed.”
3. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, the
applicants and respondent No. 2 have filed joint pursis duly verified
by them. Parties are present before the court and are identified by
their respective counsel. It is stated in para 2 of the said pursis that,
::: Uploaded on – 20/09/2017 22/09/2017 01:28:52 :::
3 APPLN4562.2017
the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably.
Respondent No.2 is cohabiting with applicant No. 1 and residing in
matrimonial home along with their two children peacefully and
without any quarrel. The First Information Report has been lodged
by respondent No. 2 out of anger, and now the parties have arrived
at the compromise/settlement. They have no grievance against each
other. The applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have decided to
give importance to the welfare of their family and concentrate on the
future of their children. Taking into consideration the improved
relationship between the applicants and respondent No. 2,
respondent No. 2 has voluntarily and without any coercion agreed for
settlement of the dispute between them and therefore prayed for
quashing of the FIR.
4. On specific interaction with respondent No. 2, she
specifically stated that, she agreed for settlement voluntarily and
without any coercion.
5. On interaction with applicant No. 1, he specifically stated
that, he will strictly abide by the terms of compromise. He further
stated that, he and respondent No. 2 have decided to lead peaceful
life keeping in view the interest and betterment of the children, and
keeping in view the importance of welfare of the family.
::: Uploaded on – 20/09/2017 22/09/2017 01:28:52 :::
4 APPLN4562.2017
6. Keeping in view the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, in
our opinion, the terms of compromise deserve to be accepted. The
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab
and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in para 61 observed as
under:
61. …… Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.:(i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. ……..
7. Keeping in view the discussion made herein above, we are
of the view that the application deserve to be allowed so as to
prevent the further abuse of the process of the court. In the result,
the Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
8. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
::: Uploaded on – 20/09/2017 22/09/2017 01:28:52 :::
