1

Cri.APL-365.22-J.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.

365

OF 202

2

Siddharth s/o. Ramesh Wankhede,

Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. : Private,

R/o. Plott No.91, Shlesha Apartment,

Karve Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur.

---APPLICANT

---VERSUS---

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through P.S.O. P. S. Jaripatka,

Dist. Nagpur.

2. Sau. Roma w/o. Kunal Wankhede,

(Roma d/o. Ramesh Janbandhu)

Aged about 30 years, Occ. : Private,

R/o. C/o. Deshbratar, Near Mota

Buddha Vihar, Indora, Nagpur.

---NON-APPLICANTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. A. S. Band, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.

Mr. Y. B. Mandpe, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :

V. M. DESHPANDE AND

AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 25.03.2022.

JUDGMENT : (PER -

AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2

Cri.APL-365.22-J.odt

3.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant who is brother-in-law of the

non-applicant No.2 is challenging registration of the First

Information Report bearing No.538/2017 registered with the non-

applicant No.1 – Police Station against the applicant for the

offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

and consequent proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.2400/2019 pending

before the 15^th Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Nagpur.

4.

The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant and another one with the accusations that

the applicant sent abusive message in relation to the non-applicant

No.2 and the said message was defamatory in nature.

5.

During pendency of the investigation, the non-applicant

No.2 has amicably resolved the dispute between her and her in-

laws. Today, in Criminal Application (APL) No.372/2022, this

Court has quashed the First Information Report against the in-laws

of the non-applicant No.2 on the ground of settlement between

the parties. In the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that

the First Information Report came to be registered out of the

matrimonial dispute between the in-laws and the non-applicant

No.2.

3

Cri.APL-365.22-J.odt

6.

The non-applicant No.2 has filed copy of deed of

settlement dated 02.02.2022. The non-applicant No.2 has also

filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection for quashing the

First Information Report against the applicant.

7.

Today, the non-applicant No.2 is present. She has stated

before the Court that she has no objection for quashing the First

Information Report against the applicant.

8.

On careful perusal of the allegations in the First

Information Report, we are satisfied that, even if, the allegations

which are accepted are correct, essential ingredients of the offence

alleged against the applicant are not fulfilled.

9.

The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & anr. reported in

(2014) AIR SCW 2065, makes it clear that the Court cannot

declare to quash the First Information Report merely because the

First Information Report incorporates a particular provision which

is a serious offence or offence against society. The Court has to

make an endeavour to find out whether the information in the

First Information Report indeed discloses the ingredients of such

offence and the Court can accept the settlement and quash the

report/charge-sheet only after the Court is of the opinion that

4

Cri.APL-365.22-J.odt

such an offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the First

Information Report/charge-sheet.

10.

From the perusal of the First Information Report and the

material produced in the Court, we are satisfied that

t