2013 ALL MR (Cri) 625


Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Ruia & Ors. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Application No. 964 of 2012

15th October, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Ms. MALLIKA INGALE i/b. Mr. SANJAY MISHRA
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. A.S. PAI, Mr. TEJAS BHATT

Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Penal Code (1860), Ss.498, 34 - Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.13(B) - Quashing of proceedings - Powers - Matrimonial dispute registered in criminal proceedings - Divorce by mutual consent - Affidavit and consent terms reflect both the parties agreed to settlement - Amicable settlement in matrimonial dispute - Criminal proceedings liable to be quashed. (Paras 5, 6)



2.Learned A.P.P. waives service for first respondent and advocate appearing for second respondent also waives service. The matter is taken up forthwith for final hearing.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is for quashing proceedings initiated on the basis of offence registered under Section 498-A r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent is the complainant.

4. The first applicant and the second respondent are husband and wife. Second applicant and third applicant are the members of the family of the first applicant. There is an affidavitin reply filed by the second respondent in which it is stated that she alongwith first applicant have moved a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Family Court at Bandra. Second respondent has relied upon the consent terms filed in the Family Court, a copy of which has been annexed to the application. Second respondent has stated that in view of the settlement reflected from the consent terms, she has no objection for quashing of proceedings.

5. We have perused the consent terms, a copy of which forms part of the present application. The consent terms record settlement in the between the first applicant and second respondent. We may note that as far as clause 16 of consent terms is concerned, the same may not be enforceable. This aspect will have to be considered by Family Court while considering the question of passing decree of the divorce by mutual consent.

6. The affidavit and the consent terms reflect that now there is a settlement between first applicant and the second respondent. Registration of offence appears to be the outcome of the matrimonial dispute. In view of amicable settlement in the matrimonial dispute, now continuation of criminal proceedings will cause prejudice to both the parties.

7. Therefore, this is a fit case where this Court should exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the proceedings.

8. Accordingly, we pass following order :

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

Application allowed.