Pradeepkumar Gobindram Garg And ORS v. Mona Pradeep Garg And ANR
* 1/5 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2016 Pradipkumar Govindram Garg & Ors.
....Applicants V/s.
Mona P. Garg and Anr.
....Respondents Mr. M.U.Kazi, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent-State.
None for Respondent No.1.
****** CORAM :- CORAM :- R.M. SAVANT & R.M. SAVANT & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE :- DATE :- 22ND AUGUST, 2017.
22ND AUGUST, 2017.
P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard Mr. M.U.Kazi for the Petitioner. None for the Heard Mr. M.U.Kazi for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1.
By the above Criminal Application, the Applicants seek By the above Criminal Application, the Applicants seek quashing and setting aside of the Criminal Case No.488 of 2013 quashing and setting aside of the Criminal Case No.488 of 2013 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6 th th Court, Court, Kalyan arising out of C.R.No.I-214/2012 registered with Vishnu Kalyan arising out of C.R.No.I-214/2012 registered with Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Dombivali for the offences punishable under Nagar Police Station, Dombivali for the offences punishable under
* 2/5 * Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The said FIR is Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The said FIR is arising out of matrimonial disputes between the Applicant No.1 and arising out of matrimonial disputes between the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.1 herein. The Applicant No.1 and the the Respondent No.1 herein. The Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.1 herein were before the Family Court in Respondent No.1 herein were before the Family Court in matrimonial proceedings being Petition No.A-514 of 2013 which matrimonial proceedings being Petition No.A-514 of 2013 which was filed by the Respondent No.1 for divorce under Section 13(1) was filed by the Respondent No.1 for divorce under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In the said Petition, parties (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said Petition, parties were referred to the marriage counsellor for counselling. Before the were referred to the marriage counsellor for counselling. Before the marriage counsellor , parties arrived at a settlement which was marriage counsellor , parties arrived at a settlement which was reduced into a writing dated 30.7.2015. In terms of the said reduced into a writing dated 30.7.2015. In terms of the said settlement, parties had agreed to divorce by mutual consent. In the settlement, parties had agreed to divorce by mutual consent.
In the context of the present application, clause (6) of the terms and context of the present application, clause (6) of the terms and conditions for divorce by mutual consent which was arrived at conditions for divorce by mutual consent which was arrived at between the parties is material and is re-produced hereunder: between the parties is material and is re-produced hereunder: "6. Petitioner has lodged a criminal case against "6. Petitioner has lodged a criminal case against respondent and his family members which is pending respondent and his family members which is pending before J.M.F.C. Court, Kalyan. Petitioner undertakes before J.M.F.C. Court, Kalyan.
Petitioner undertakes before the court that she shall not prosecute further in before the court that she shall not prosecute further in above said criminal matter and also she shall extend above said criminal matter and also she shall extend her co-operation to quash the criminal proceeding. her co-operation to quash the criminal proceeding.
* 3/5 * give her no objection for quashing the said criminal give her no objection for quashing the said criminal case."
case."
In terms of the said settlement, the Petition filed by the In terms of the said settlement, the Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein was converted to one under Section 13(B) Respondent No.1 herein was converted to one under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e, divorce by mutual consent. of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e, divorce by mutual consent. The said Petition came to be allowed and consequently, the marriage The said Petition came to be allowed and consequently, the marriage solemnised between the parties on 26.4.2017 came to be dissolved solemnised between the parties on 26.4.2017 came to be dissolved by the decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said judgment of by the decree of divorce by mutual consent. The said judgment of the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2 is dated 30.7.2015.
It is the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2 is dated 30.7.2015. It is in terms of the settlement which was arrived at between the parties in terms of the settlement which was arrived at between the parties as evidenced by the terms and conditions for divorce by mutual as evidenced by the terms and conditions for divorce by mutual consent, that the instant Criminal Application has been filed for consent, that the instant Criminal Application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR lodged by the quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.1 with Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Dombivali. None respondent no.1 with Vishnu Nagar Police Station, Dombivali. None appears for the Respondent No.1 though notice dated 5.72016 is appears for the Respondent No.1 though notice dated 5.
72016 is served on the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing on served on the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants would submit that in the light of settlement behalf of the Applicants would submit that in the light of settlement arrived at between the parties as also, having regard to the fact that arrived at between the parties as also, having regard to the fact that the Trial Court has decreed the Petition filed for divorce by mutual the Trial Court has decreed the Petition filed for divorce by mutual consent, the instant proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, consent, the instant proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Kalyan would have to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel Kalyan would have to be quashed and set aside.
* 4/5 * would further draw this Court's attention to the fact that the would further draw this Court's attention to the fact that the Respondent No.1 is re-married which fact he seeks to buttress by the Respondent No.1 is re-married which fact he seeks to buttress by the invitation card to which the learned counsel for the Applicants invitation card to which the learned counsel for the Applicants seeks to draw our attention. Reading of the invitation card, seeks to draw our attention. Reading of the invitation card, therefore, discloses that the Respondent No.1 has got married to one therefore, discloses that the Respondent No.1 has got married to one Sumeet Dwarkaprasad Mangaliwala on Saturday, 3.12.2016. Sumeet Dwarkaprasad Mangaliwala on Saturday, 3.12.2016.
Be that as it may, having regard to the facts as Be that as it may, having regard to the facts as aforesaid, namely, the settlement arrived at between the parties as aforesaid, namely, the settlement arrived at between the parties as evidenced by the terms and conditions of divorce by mutual consent, evidenced by the terms and conditions of divorce by mutual consent, decree passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between decree passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.1 no useful purpose the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.1 no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending. There is would be served by keeping the proceedings pending.
There is therefore no impediment for quashing and setting aside the said therefore no impediment for quashing and setting aside the said proceedings having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the proceedings having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab Narinder Singh v.
466. Dictum of the Supreme Court in
466. Dictum of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 (2012) 10 SCC 303 would also lead to the same would also lead to the same conclusion. No useful purpose would therefore be served in keeping conclusion. No useful purpose would therefore be served in keeping
* 5/5 * the proceedings pending. Hence, the above Criminal Application is the proceedings pending. Hence, the above Criminal Application is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(a).
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J)