IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2903 OF 2018
Sachin Appasaheb Jadhav ors. … Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra anr. … Respondents
Mr. A. R. Kondai, i/b V. V. Ugle, for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr. B. S. Shinde, for Respondent no.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J J.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2018.
1. Heard Mr. Kondai, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP and Mr. B. S.
Shinde, the learned Counsel for Respondent no.2.
2. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside FIR
bearing CR No.231 of 2017 registered with Vita Police
Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences
3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband
and wife. Rest of the petitioners are the family members of
petitioner No.1. Marital dispute between the parties gave rise
to filing of several criminal as well as civil matter. The subject
matter of the present petition is one of them. Pending
investigation, the parties have settled their dispute amicably,
and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between
them, have approached this Court for quashing and setting-
aside the subject FIR by consent.
Respondent No.2 has filed Memo of Understanding
dated 27th March, 2018. In terms of this Memo Of
Understanding parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage
as the divorce by mutual consent granted by order dated 1 st
October, 2018 in HMP No.43 of 2018, by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Malshiras. In terms of Memo of
Understanding, they have approached this Court for
quashing the subject crime by consent.
The Respondent no.2, accordingly, has filed Affidavit on
9th October, 2018. She has given her no objection for
quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR. Respondent No.2
is personally present before the Court. On being questioned,
she has specifically stated that she has gone through the
Affidavit and has understood the contents thereof and she
has no objection if the subject FIR is quashed and set-aside.
4. 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 quashing of the FIR 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 subject
FIR is required to be quashed. The petition is, accordingly,
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed
of as such.
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]