SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

6] Minal Parmeshar Palwade vs H on 27 August, 2012

Bombay High Court 6] Minal Parmeshar Palwade vs H on 27 August, 2012Bench: Shrihari P. Davare

1 crap2781.10 rt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

ou

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2781 OF 2010 WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3275 OF 2012 C

1] Ashish s/o Jagannath Mali, h

age 30 years, occ. Labour,

2]

ig

Jagannath s/o Budha Mali,

age 60 years,occ. Nil.,

H

3] Vimalbai w/o Jagannath Mali, age 55 years,occ. Household,

r/o R/O N-4, CIDCO, Plot No. F-57, y

Aurangabad,

ba

4] Sunil s/o Jagannath Mali, age 40 years, occ. Agril.,

om

5] Ratna w/o Sunil Mali,

age 30 years, occ. Household, both R/o 139, Gram Palasare,

Tahsil Chalisgaon,

District Jalgaon,

B

6] Minal Parmeshar Palwade, age 35 years, Occ. Doctor,

r/o Shivajinagar, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. …Applicants VERSUS

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 2 crap2781.10 rt

1] The State of Maharashtra, through police station officer, ou

Shahada, Ta. Shahada,

District Nandurbar,

2] Sau. Vandana Ashish Mali, C

age 22 years, occ. Household, r/o c/o Vinayak Limba Pawar,

near Naik High School,

Plot No. 10, Nitin Nagar,

h

Shahada, near Shivram Mandir, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar …Respondents ig

…..

H

Shri S.C.Bhosale, advocate for applicants Shri N.B.Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Shri S.V.Natu, advocate for respondent no.2 …..

y

CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. ba

DATED : 27th August, 2012. om

ORAL JUDGMENT : –

1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken B

up for final hearing with the consent of respective learned counsel for the parties.

2] By the present application filed by the applicants under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 3 crap2781.10 rt

the applicants prayed that the first information report and further proceedings of C.R. No. 78 of 2010, registered at Shahada ou

police station under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by respondent no.2 against them, C

be quashed and set aside.

h

3] Alternatively, the applicants prayed that respondent ig

no.1 police station officer, Shahada police station be directed to H

transfer the first information report and papers of C.R. No. 78 of 2010 registered against the applicants at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections y

ba

498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to Mukundwadi police station, Aurangabad. om

4] The factual matrix of the case is as follows :- B

The marriage between applicant no.1 Ashish and respondent no.2 Mrs. Vandana took place on 20.4.2008. 5] The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of respondent no.2; whereas applicant no.4 is the husband’s ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 4 crap2781.10 rt

brother of respondent no.2 and applicant no.5 is the wife of applicant no.4 and applicant no.6 is the married sister of ou

applicant no.1.

C

6] Shortly after the marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, the differences cropped up between them and h

respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home on 31.1.2009. It is ig

alleged that in spite of making efforts no reconciliation took H

place between them.

7] It is also alleged that respondent no.2 resides with y

ba

her parents since last about 1½ years. The meetings were held in presence of relatives and attempts were made for om

reconciliation, but reunion between them could not take place. 8] It is also alleged that on 19.12.2009 applicant no.1 B

issued notice to respondent no.1 through advocate for restitution of conjugal rights. However, respondent no.2 neither took any positive steps for reunion between them nor gave reply to the said notice. Copy of the said notice is annexed at Exh. ‘A’ to the petition. According to the applicants, they made ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 5 crap2781.10 rt

efforts for reunion between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, but said efforts were not fruitful due to adamant attitude of ou

respondent no.2 and her parents. C

9] Thereafter, applicant no.1 filed Hindu Marriage Petition before the Family Court, Aurangabad for restitution of h

conjugal rights on 22.3.2012. Applicant no.1 was ready to take ig

respondent no.2 to his house, but respondent no.2 did not H

respond for cohabitation. Copy of the said Hindu Marriage Petition is annexed at Exh.’B’ to the petition. y

ba

10] It is further alleged that in the mean time, respondent no.2 lodged complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w om

34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants at Shahada police station, District Nandurbar alleging the demand from the applicants of Rs. Five Lacs as maintenance for harassment B

on the part of applicant no.1 and further alleging that applicant nos.2 to 6 used to help applicant no.1 in causing harassment to respondent no.2. In fact, applicant nos. 4 and 5 reside separately, but still they were involved in the said alleged offence, though they had no concern with the same. So is the ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 6 crap2781.10 rt

position with applicant no. 6 as she is married sister of applicant no.1, who is residing with her husband at Shivajinagar, ou

Aurangabad and is a practising doctor, but still she was implicated in the said case. C

11] It is also alleged that even there was no jurisdiction to h

Shahada police station to record the said first information ig

report, since from the allegations of respondent no.2, the H

alleged cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Mukundwadi police station, Aurangabad. According to the applicants, there was no prima facie case made out by y

ba

respondent no.2, and that applicant nos. 2 to 6 were implicated in the said complaint falsely to pressurise applicant no.1 and no om

offence was made out in the entire first information report. 12] Moreover, as per the contention of the applicants, B

there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of respondent no.2 in lodging the first information report, and therefore, serious doubt is created in respect of the contents thereof. Hence, the applicants filed the present application invoking Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 7 crap2781.10 rt

Procedure and prayed for quashment of the said first information report and the proceedings thereunder, and ad- ou

interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ of the present application was granted in favour of the applicants, which is in C

force.

h

13] The parties have preferred Criminal Application No. ig

3275 of 2012 in the present application and stated that the H

applicants as well as respondent no. 2 have settled the dispute between them and respondent no.2 is residing happily with the applicants in her matrimonial home at Aurangabad presently. y

ba

It is also submitted that the applicants and respondent no.2 are close relatives and the applicants state that now the matter is om

amicably settled by both the parties. Hence, it is submitted that it is necessary to quash and set aside the first information report bearing C.R. No. 78 of 2010, registered with Shahada B

police station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that in support of the said application, the applicants as well as respondent no.2 have filed affidavit for compounding the offence. It is also submitted that ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 8 crap2781.10 rt

since now both the parties have amicably settled the matter, they want to compound the offence. Therefore, they sought ou

permission to compound the above referred in first information report, but since offence under Section 498A of the Indian C

Penal Code is not compoundable, it is necessary to quash and set aside the first information report as referred herein above. h

14]

ig

I have perused the contents of the Criminal H

Application No. 2781 of 2010 and annexures annexed therewith and also perused the contents of subsequent application filed by the parties bearing Criminal Application No. y

ba

3275 of 2012 and heard learned respective counsel for the parties.

om

15] Applicant no.1 Ashish Jagannath Mali and respondent no.2 Mrs. Vandana Ashish Mali, who are the B

husband and the wife of each other, are present today in the court and both admitted that the dispute between them has been settled amicably and respondent no.2 has been residing with applicant no.1 at her matrimonial home presently. Respondent no.2 also filed her affidavit, which is annexed with ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 9 crap2781.10 rt

Criminal Application No. 3275 of 2012 and she admitted the contents of the said application. She also desires that the first ou

information report registered under C.R. No. 78 of 2010 at Shahada police station and further proceedings thereunder be C

quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 also admitted her signature on the affidavit annexed with Criminal Application No. h

3275 of 2012. She has been identified by Shri S.V.Natu, ig

advocate, who appears on her behalf and he has also scribed H

his signature on the said affidavit. 16] In the circumstances, it is amply clear that the parties y

ba

have resolved the dispute amicably and there appears to be reunion between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and om

dispute between them has been settled out of court and respondent no.2 has been residing with applicant no.1 at her matrimonial home presently. It also appears from the contents B

of Criminal Application No. 3275 of 2012 that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have been cohabiting happily and they sought permission to compound the offence. However, admittedly the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 10 crap2781.10 rt

Procedure, and therefore, considering the amicable settlement between the parties as mentioned herein above and reunion ou

between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal C

Procedure deserve to be invoked to secure the ends of justice to prevent the abuse of process of court, since the exercise to h

prosecute the proceeding under the afore said first information ig

report will be futile as the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 H

herein does not wish to prosecute said proceeding further more. Moreover, it is also amply clear that the prosecution initiated by respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant under C.R. No. 78 of y

ba

2010 at Shahada police station, District Nandurbar, could not end in conviction since respondent no.2 i.e. original om

complainant is not desirous to prosecute the said proceeding further more, and hence, there is no propriety and no fruitful purpose would be served to proceed with the proceeding B

registered under C.R. No. 78 of 2010 at Shahada police station, District Nandurbar.

17] Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of this court reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 3089 ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 11 crap2781.10 rt

[Mohd. Muddasar Ansari s/o Afsar Ansari vs The State of Maharashtra and others], particularly para nos. 12 and 13 ou

thereof, which are as follows :- C

” 12. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Anjusingh Pramodsingh Rajput Vs. h

State of Maharashtra & another, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 763, relying on the judgment of ig

Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana and another, H

reported at 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162, has observed thus :

” 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case y

of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana ba

and another, reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 held as under :-

om

” Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 – Inherent powers – Quashing of proceedings, F.I.R. or complaint – Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise of B

power of quashing – Whether to exercise or not such a power would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Criminal P.C. S. 482 – Powers of Court – ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 12 crap2781.10 rt

Matrimonial offences – It is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of ou

matrimonial disputes. ”

In another case of Mansur A.Khan Vs. State of C

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1911, this Court held as under :- h

” Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989), S. ig

3(1)(x) – Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 – Compounding of offences – Inherent powers of H

Court – Complaint under S. 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act – Settlement between accused and complainant – Offence though non- compoundable, Court under S.482 of Criminal y

Procedure Code can permit the parties to ba

compound the non-compoundable offence, when it is satisfied that settlement is bonafide and free from pressure and force. ” om

In another case of Swati w/o. Pradeep Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1743 B

this Court held that :-

” Criminal P.C., Ss.482, 320 – Penal Code, Ss. 498-A, 420, 494, 495 and section 506 (B) – Amicable settlement of disputes between the parties – No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings initiated by the wife ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 13 crap2781.10 rt

when she herself is not interested in prosecuting the said proceedings – Criminal ou

Proceedings quashed. “

This Court in the case of Mr. C

Jitendra S. Bhadoria and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 898 held as under :- h

“Criminal P.C., Ss. 320, 482 – Quashing of ig

Proceedings – Compounding of offence u/s. 320 – Cruelty to wife – Section 320 of Criminal H

P.C. does not limit or affect the power of the High Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. – Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise a power of quashing. Penal Code (1860), Section 498-A, y

2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) – relied on.” ba

22. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. The om

State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 584 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 952 (F.B.)] held that the powers under section 482 of the Code are not limited or B

affected by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 14 crap2781.10 rt

powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any ou

Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, pending upon the facts of a given C

case. The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of h

the Code. The Court could exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether ig

compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such inherent powers are to be H

exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of this judgment. This Court further observed that the powers to compound y

can be exercised at the trial stage or even at ba

the appellate stage subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated by the legislature under section 320 of the Code. om

The Full Bench in above referred judgment in para 6.13 has observed that the powers of compounding is strictly regulated by B

statutory powers while the inherent powers of the Court are guided by judicial pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the Code. Another very important facet of criminal jurisprudence which as developed in the present time is with regard to the impact of compounding and/or quashing criminal ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 15 crap2781.10 rt

proceedings in relation to an offence, its impact on the victim, witnesses and the ou

society at large. This must be treated as a relevant consideration.

C

In above referred judgment, in para No.5.14 the Full Bench has observed that when the Court has to consider whether the h

criminal Proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two ig

aspects are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the H

complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.”

y

ba

13.The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul, etc. Vs. State of Madhya om

Pradesh & another, reported at 2008 ALL SCR 2111, in para 10 of the judgment, has observed thus :

B

” We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. ::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 16 crap2781.10 rt

Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case ou

and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the C

process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash h

the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from ig

the FIR lodged under section 498-A, IPC. The appeal is accordingly H

disposed of. “

……… ………… ………. ………..” y

ba

18] In view of the pronouncement by the Full Bench of this Court, relying on the various Supreme Court’s Judgment, I om

have no hesitation to proceed on footings that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code B

include the powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before any Courts subordinate to this court. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, Criminal Application No. 2781 of 2010 deserves to be allowed to meet the ends of justice.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 ::: 17 crap2781.10 rt

19] In the result, Criminal Application No. 2781 of 2010 is ou

allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and the first information report and further proceedings under C.R. No. 78 of C

2010, registered at Shahada police station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 h

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by respondent no.2 i.e. ig

original complainant against the applicants stand quashed and H

set aside. Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms. Office to inform the concerned police station y

ba

accordingly. Since Criminal Application No. 2781 of 2010 is allowed, nothing survives in Criminal Application No. 3275 of om

2012, and therefore, same stands disposed of. B

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE),

JUDGE.

dbm/crap2781.10

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 19:02:09 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation