1

17-apl-647 & 27-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 647 OF 2021

Siddhivinayak Umesh Virdhe

..Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2021

Priyanka Amit Bhat & Ors.

..Applicants.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents

__________

Mr. Sarang Aradhye for Applicants in both Applications.

Mr. Ashutosh A. Kumbhkoni, Advocate General is present in Court.

Ms. A. S. Pai, P. P. a/w. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State/Respondent

No.1.

Ms. Sayali Deshmukh, Respondent No.2 with Rajendra Manohar

Deshmukh, present in person.

__________

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND

SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 21 DECEMBER 2021

P.C. :

.

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants and the

learned APP. Taken up for disposal.

1 of 8

Gokhale

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Digitally

signed by

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Date:

2021.12.23

17:52:01

+0530

2

17-apl-647 & 27-21

2.

The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and she is

appearing in person along with her father Rajendra Manohar

Deshmukh who is practicing advocate at Madha, District Solapur.

Considering the affidavit tendered by the Respondent No.2 and that

Shri. Deshmukh is a practicing advocate, we have permitted

Respondent No.2’s father to represent her.

3.

The learned counsel for the Applicants and the

Respondent No.2 jointly request that the F.I.R. filed by the

Respondent No.2 be quashed as the Respondent No.2 has given her

consent and Affidavit to that effect is filed.

4.

There are two Applications seeking to quash the same

F.I.R. Application No. 647 of 2021 is filed by the husband of the

Respondent No.2. Application No. 27 of 2021 is filed by the

Applicant No.1 sister-in-law, Applicant No.2 brother of father-in-law,

Applicant No.3 father-in-law and Applicant No.4 mother-in-law of

the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 filed an F.I.R. alleging

mental and physical cruelty by the Applicants and that she was

subjected to demands of dowry.

5.

The learned counsel for the Applicants and the

Respondent No2. state that the divorce petition has been filed

bearing Marriage Petition No. 117 of 2021 in the court of Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Pandharpur, wherein, consent terms have been

executed. It is stated that, in the light of the same, the dispute is

2 of 8

3

17-apl-647 & 27-21

settled.

6.

Considering this statement made on oath and in person

before us, we find that the case for exercise of extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The dispute led to filing of an

F.I.R. is a matrimonial dispute which is now resolved. It does not have

repercussion on the society at large.

7.

There is however a wider issue. We note that very large

number of applications and writ petitions are filed in this Court for

quashing of F.I.R. filed under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, on

the ground that the parties have settled their dispute. These

proceedings are then quashed by the High Court in its extraordinary

jurisdiction. We had requested the learned Advocate General to assist

the Court to ascertain whether Section 498A of IPC can be made

compoundable with permission of the Court. We were of this prima

facie opinion, in the light of the fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh

by amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act of 11 of

2003 has amended Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

and inserted Section 498A of the IPC in the table appended to

Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

8.

Learned Advocate General accepted that the State of

Andhra Pradesh had already made the offence under Section 498-A

of IPC a compoundable offence with permission of the Court with

certain stipulations.

3 of 8

4

17-apl-647 & 27-21

9.

Shri Aradhye, learned counsel for the Applicants has ably

assisted the Court on legal position at short notice. He places before

us the extracts from the