Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
Prasanna B. Varale, Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ.
Virbhadra Manmathappa Jante & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 675 of 2016
Decided On : 15-03-2018
A.J. Deshpande, Adv., V.D. Gunale, Adv., D.R. Kale, Adv., S.C. Swami Chakurkar, Adv.
The court can use inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have amicably settled their differences, ensuring justice and social amity.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code 498-A, 323, 504, 506(2), 313, 143, 147, 148 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR filed by the respondent, alleging ill-treatment, forced termination of pregnancy, and threats by the petitioner and his family. The respondent later expressed willingness to reconcile, leading to the petition for quashing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matrimonial dispute had been resolved amicably, and the respondent was willing to cohabit with the petitioner. Citing precedents, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR in the interest of justice.
Issues: Allegations of ill-treatment, forced termination of pregnancy, and threats in a matrimonial dispute; willingness of the respondent to reconcile.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have amicably settled their differences, ensuring justice and social amity.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. The petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in order to quash the First Information Report (Hereinafter referred as ''FIR'') bearing No. 110/2016 dated 31-03-2016 registered with Police Station, Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur District Latur, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 (2), 313, 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner No.1 got married with respondent No.2 on 05-03-2014. Petitioners No.2 is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioners No.3 is her sisterin-law.
4. Respondent No.2 had filed report with the Police Station, Ahmedpur Dist. Latur stating that, prior to her marriage with petitioner No.1 there were three marriages of the petitioner No.1. His first wife died, second wife left him and third wife became mentally retired. Petitioner No.1 has one son and one daughter from his first wife, and both of them are presently studying. Informant was residing at Ahmedpur along with mother-in-law and children of first wife. Her married sister-in-law Devi used to come at Ahmedpur frequently. After informant became pregnant of three months, petitioner No.1, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started ill-treating her on the count that petitioner No.1 already has two children from the first wife. Petitioner No. 1 was not desirous to have child from respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2, therefore, gave tablets to informant for permination of her pregnancy. Informant was beaten when she refused to take tablets and forcibly gave those tablets to her. She was then admitted in the hospital. Thereafter her husband left her at her parental house at Bodhan Dist. Nizamabad. At Bodhan Dr. Chittibabu and Dr. Sanja Rani carried her sonography and told that her pregnancy has been terminated. She further alleged that, when she was at Ahmedpur at her matrimonial house, her father came to meet her on 23-03-2016. At that time accused persons had beaten her and threatened her to kill, so she left the house of petitioner No.1 and went with her father at Bodhan Dist. Nizamanabad. Thereafter, the informant had lodged the FIR.
5. The petitioners have contended that, allegations made by the respondent No.2 are false and vague. No particular date, month and year are given in respect of forcible termination of pregnancy, visit by her at her maternal house. Incident dated 29-03-2016 is concocted story. It is contended that, respondent No.2 was saying that she has no interest in the petitioner No. 1. Respondent had left matrimonial home on her own left. It has been contended that when his relatives and friends visited his house on 24-03-2016 , at that time respondent No.2 abused them and asked the petitioner No.1 to deposit Rs. 5 lakh in her name and give her divorce, as well as execute sale deed of two acres of land in her name. Therefore, petitioner No.1 filed complaint with police station against respondent No.2 on 23-03-2016. He has also filed complaint on 29-03-2016 with Police Station when father of respondent No.2 asaulted him at his resident house. Allegations made against them by the respondent No.2 are false and vague.
6. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2. It is stated that, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 settled the matter amicably and now they have decided to live peacefully. Respondent No.2 is ready to cohabit with Petitioner No. 1. She has stated that, due to misunderstanding and in anger she had lodged the FIR, therefore, she has no objection no objection to quash the FIR.
7. The respondent No.2 was before this Court. It was ensured from her, whether her consent is voluntary or not. She has stated that the dispute is resolved. We take the consent of respondent No.2 as voluntarily given.
8. It is to be noted that, the petitioner
