Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1084 (BOM)

Nitesh Raosaheb Misal v. State of Maharashtra

2015-04-23

SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2015
JUDGMENT Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Heard Adv. Mr. G.R. Syed for the petitioners, learned APP Mr. U.S. Mote for respondent No. 1 - State, and Adv. Mr. P.B. Pawar for respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly seeks liberty to delete petitioner No. 4. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein are convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, vide judgment and order dated 7-6-2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ashti [District : Beed], in Regular Criminal Case No. 57 of 2011. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein have filed Criminal Appeal No. 57/2014, before the Sessions Court at Beed. During the pendency of the Appeal, parties to the petition have arrived at an amicable settlement. During the pendency of the Appeal, parties to the petition have filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Beed, which is registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No. 73/2015, seeking divorce by mutual consent. Parties to the present petition had also filed a compromise Pursish before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, seeking composition of the offence. Since the District Appellate Court had no powers similar to the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to allow the composition of offence under Section 498A of IPC, parties to the petition have filed joint Pursish seeking composition of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 5. Parties to the petition are present before the Court. The respective Counsel have identified the parties. 6. The Pursish is taken on record and marked as Article "X" for the purpose of identification. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that, the couple has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 73/2015 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed, seeking divorce by mutual consent and after arriving at an amicable settlement, this Court is inclined to allow the parties to compound the said offence. 8. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that, the couple has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 73/2015 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed, seeking divorce by mutual consent and after arriving at an amicable settlement, this Court is inclined to allow the parties to compound the said offence. 8. It has been specifically stated in the compromise Pursish that, the respondent No. 2 herein has received an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. The interest of the respondent No. 2 have been protected. In view of this, continuation of the proceedings in appeal before the appellate Court, would be an abuse of process of law and the parties will have to face ordeal of the criminal proceedings. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. Parties to the petition are hereby allowed to compound the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The composition of offence amounts to acquittal and hence, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein deserve to be acquitted and are being accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2014 before the Sessions Court at Beed, would be rendered infructuous and the same stand disposed of, after presenting the order passed by this Court. Bail bonds of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein stand cancelled. The Sessions Court at Beed shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of this order passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.