Premkishore S/O Chaganlal Zanwar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.974/2015 Premkishore Chaganlal Zanwar and three others.
...Applicants..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & another.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate h/f Shri Vicky J. Francis, Advocate for applicants.
Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent no.1.
Shri Faruk Shaikh, Advocate for respondent no.2. .....
CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI & INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.
DATE: 08.09.2015 ORDER :
1] Following is the prayer in the application :
"[B] FIR bearing Crime No.I-37/2014 u/sec.498-A, 323, 34 of I.P.C. Dated 27.11.2014 registered with Police Station, Islapur Tq.Kinwat Dist.Nanded, may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of applicants."
- 2 - 2] Applicant no.1 - husband - Premkishore Chaganlal Zanwar and respondent no.2 - wife - Bhagyashri Premkishore Zanwar are present before the Court with their respective counsel. Both have been identified by the learned counsel appearing for them. They have produced on record respective affidavits. One is by husband - the applicant no.1 in support of the application for compounding and the other is by the respondent no.2 - wife agreeing with the terms and conditions arrived at as per mediation. There is report dated 16.7.2015 by the Mediator alongwith the record indicating that mediation succeeded in accordance with the consent terms enclosed therewith. We have perused the consent terms, which is marked as Exhibit X for identification.
3] In order that the parties to this lis do not get further embarrassed and in view of successful mediation as also the terms and conditions of the consent terms placed on record as above, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in
- 3 - accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab & another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.
4] In that view of the matter, we allow the Criminal Application No.974/2015. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No order as to costs.
(INDIRA K. JAIN, J.) (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) ndk/cr891523.doc