Nitin Baliram Sonawane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 June, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nitin Baliram Sonawane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 June, 2022

Bench: C.V. Bhadang, S.G.Dige

                                            1
                                                                    3113.21Appln

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
                    BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3113 OF 2021

          1. Nitin s/o. Baliram Sonawane.
          2. Kamalbai w/o. Baliram Sonawane.
          3. Baliram s/o.Dhondu Sonawane.
          4. Jitendra s/o. Baliram Sonawane.
          5. Neha w/o. Nitin Sonawane.
          6. Suita w/o. Mangal Varulkar.
          7. Mangal Waman Varulkar.
          8. Anita w/o. Manoj Sapkal.
          9. Manoj s/o. Mukunda Sapkal.
          10.Kavita w/o. Shailesh Amodkar.
          11.Shailesh s/o. Gokul Amodkar.    .. Applicants.

                               Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
             and another.                            .. Respondents.
                                       ...
          Mr.M.P.Bhaskar, Advocate for the applicants.
          Mr.S.D.Ghayal, APP for the respondent-State.
          Mr.A.J.Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                        ...

                                   CORAM : C.V. BHADANG &
                                           S.G.DIGE, JJ.

DATE : 6 JUNE 2022 P.C. :

1. This application is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.

::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2022 06:40:46 ::: 2

3113.21Appln

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR No.196 of 2019 (326/2019) of Jalgaon City Police Station, Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent charge sheet in Regular Criminal Case No.10/2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The parties have amicably settled the dispute and the marriage between 1st applicant and 2nd respondent has been dissolved by consent by a decree of divorce passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Pune in Matrimonial Petition No.451/2019 on 01.04.2021.

5. The Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another (2013) 4 SCC 58 has held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered and it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase.

::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2022 06:40:46 ::: 3

3113.21Appln

6. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B. S.G.DIGE, J. C.V. BHADANG, J.

DDC ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2022 06:40:46 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court