Raghunath Ravikant Rawool And ORS v. Anjali Ragunath Rawool And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1133 of 2018 Mr. Raghunath Ravikant Rawool and ors.

.....Applicants versus Mrs. Anjali Raghunath Rawool and anr.

.....Respondents Ms. P. S. Khedekar i/b. Mr. R. A. Hande, advocate for the applicants. Mr. Abdulfazi Rezwani, advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 8th JULY, 2019.

P. C. :

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

2.

The application is filed for quashing and setting-aside the FIR bearing CR No.122 of 2018 registered with Vakola Police Station at the instance of respondent No.1, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.

Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 24th March, 2006. Rest of the applicants are the relatives of applicant No.1 and in-laws of respondent No.1 Matrimonial dispute between the Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

parties gave rise to filing of civil as well as criminal cases and the subject FIR is one of them. Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of their elders and well-wishers and have, accordingly, filed consent terms before the Sessions Court at Greater Mumbai in Anticipatory Bail Application No.673 of 2018. A copy of the said consent terms is annexed at 18 of the petition. In pursuance of the understanding arrived at between the parties, they have now approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.1 has also filed an affidavit dated 17th October, 2018, wherein she has reiterated whatever that has been stated hereinabove and in paragraph 9, she has given her no objection for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR. Respondent No.

1 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, she specifically stated that she has gone through the application and the affidavit as well and has fully understood the contents thereof. She has further confirmed that she has given no objection for quashing the subject FIR out of her own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

5.

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 Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

B.S.Joshi versus State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386, we are of the view that quashing of the criminal proceedings would be in the interest of respondent No.1. Besides, no purpose would be served by keeping the FIR alive except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, subject FIR is required to be quashed and set-aside. The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed as such.

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 3/3