Mahesh Dilip Gutte And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 September, 2017

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 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *