SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pandhari S/O Rushi Meshram And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 July, 2019

1/4 13 APL 806-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 806 of 2016

Pandhari s/o Rushi Meshram ors .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Anr .. Respondents


Mr.Siddharth Jagushte i/b Akash Kevade for the applicant.
Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State.
Ms.Ruchi Patil for respondent no.2.

CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.

DATED : 9th JULY 2019

P.C:-

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2
and the learned APP for the State.

2 Application is filed for quashing and setting aside
the FIR bearing C.R. No.0272 of 2016 registered at the instance
of Respondent no.2 for an offence punishable under Section
498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3, Section4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Tilak

::: Uploaded on – 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 01:46:07 :::
2/4 13 APL 806-16.doc

3 The applicant no.5 and respondent no.2 got

married on 14th February 2015. Rest of the applicants are
relatives of the applicants. Matrimonial disputes between the
parties gave rise to the filing of civil as well as criminal
proceedings by the parties against one another and the subject
petition is one of them. Applicant no.5 and respondent no.2
approached the Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Chandrapur and filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.222 of 2018.
A decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed under
Sectionsection 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the judgment and
decree dated 7th January 2019 passed in Hindu Marriage
Petition No.222 of 2018, marriage between applicant no.5 and
respondent no.2 got dissolved. The said decree is placed on
record.

4 By the order dated 5th January 2018, this Court
issued notice to the respondent no.2 in the above application.
Respondent no.2 received notice and in reply thereto, same
letter dated 19th August 2016 wherein she stated that she
apprehends danger to her life and it is not possible for her to
travel to Mumbai. In light of the contents of the said letter,
fresh notice was issued to the respondent no.2 informing
whether she desires to avail services of an Advocate from the
Legal Aid Panel to represent her in the matter. However, she
did not appear. Thereafter, by the order dated 11 th June 2019,

Tilak

::: Uploaded on – 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 01:46:07 :::
3/4 13 APL 806-16.doc

we appointed Advocate Ms.Ruchi Patil to represent respondent
no.2.

5 Advocate Ruchi Patil makes a statement that she
had a telephonic talk with the respondent no.2. She stated that
respondent no.2 has informed her that she has no objection to
quash the proceedings of the subject FIR as against the
applicant. She has also stated that parties are now divorced
and dispute between them is amicably settled.

6 We have also perused the FIR and found that
there are no specific allegations against the applicant and the
allegations are general in nature. In our opinion, the provisions
of Section 498A of the IPC and Section 304 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are not applicable.

7 In light of above, we are of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served by continuing criminal
proceedings against the accused.

8 It can, thus be seen that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties. Perusal of the complaint,
makes it clear that the allegations are totally personal in nature.
In these circumstances and especially in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Versus State
of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386, we are of the view that

Tilak

::: Uploaded on – 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 01:46:07 :::
4/4 13 APL 806-16.doc

quashing of the criminal proceedings would be in the interest of
respondent no.2. Besides, no purpose would be served by
keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the
Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view
of the matter and in the interests of justice, the proceedings of
the subject criminal case are required to be quashed and set
aside.

9 Hence, we quash and set aside the FIR bearing
C.R.No.0272 of 2016 registered with P.S.O Police Station,
Karhad, District Satara. The application is, accordingly, made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (1).

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Tilak

::: Uploaded on – 10/07/2019 11/07/2019 01:46:07 :::

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