Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 849 (BOM)

Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra

2021-05-06

AMIT B.BORKAR, Z.A.HAQ

body2021
JUDGMENT AMIT B.BORKAR,J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of the First Information Report (FIR) No. 582/2017, dated 16.12.2017 against the applicants registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station and final report no. 90/2018, dated 13.08.2018 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants with accusations that the applicants had physically and mental harassed the non-applicant no. 2. The applicant no. 1 is the husband of the non-applicant no. 2 and the applicant nos. 2 to 10 are in-laws of the non-applicant no. 2. The Investigating Agency carried out investigation and filed charge-sheet against the applicants. The applicants have challenged registration of the FIR and charge-sheet by way of filing present application. 5. This Court on 15.01.2021 issued notice to the non- applicants. The non-applicant no. 1 has filed reply stating that the applicants have settled their dispute with the non-applicant no. 2. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2 invited our attention to the terms of settlement filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daryapur in H.M.P. No. 76/2020. In paragraph no. 4 of the terms of agreement of settlement, the non-applicant no. 2 has agreed to withdraw all proceedings against the applicants. 6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and material produced in the form of charge-sheet. On careful consideration of the aforesaid material, we are of the view that offences alleged against the applicants are personal in nature. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should originally accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which Courts, grossly over- burdened, as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. 8. In view of the above ratio, there is no impediment in quashing the FIR and charge-sheet against the applicants. 8. In view of the above ratio, there is no impediment in quashing the FIR and charge-sheet against the applicants. We, therefore, pass the following order:- The FIR No. 582/2017, dated 16.12.2017 registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station against the applicants and charge-sheet bearing No. 90/2018, dated 13.08.2018 submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati for offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal Case No. 222/2018 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.