Manish Hitesh Panchal v. Ashalata Rashmikant Panchal And ANR

sat 1/2 apl 88-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2016 Mrs.Manisha Hitesh Panchal ...Applicant vs.

Smt.Ashalata Rashmikant Panchal & Anr.

...Respondents

Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b. Kiran Jain & Co. for Applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State.

Mr.Ram Pandey for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

29 JANUARY 2016 P.C. :

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and learned APP for the State.

The application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.257/2015 registered by Mira Road Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 of IPC. Pending investigation, the parties settled their disputes amiably and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, filed the present application for quashing the subject FIR, by consent. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 29 January 2016. By making statement in para 5, she has supported the Applicant's application for quashing the subject FIR. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the court. She confirms the contents of the affidavit. On specific query, she states that she has no objection to quash the subject FIR. She also states that she is giving consent out of free will and without there being any pressure or undue influence.

sat 2/2 apl 88-2016.doc Be that as it may, it can be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires 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 Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065), we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened.

Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.C. GUPTE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)