2013 ALL MR (Cri) 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

A.S. OKA AND S.S. JADHAV, JJ.

Mr. Ankit Sushil Kumar Goyal Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Application No. 768 of 2012

30th October, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. RANVIR SHEKHAWAT
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. M.H. MHATRE, Mr. PRABHAKAR B. PARSE

Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Penal Code (1860), Ss.292(a), 506(II), 509 - Information Technology Act (2000), Ss.66(A), 66(C), 67 - Quashing of proceedings - Matrimonial dispute - Execution of compromise deed - Parties agreed to file divorce by mutual consent - Assurances given by husband not to interfere in her personal life and will not blackmail - In view of assurances wife has no objection for quashing the proceedings - Proceedings liable to be quashed. (Paras 4 to 6)

JUDGMENT

A. S. OKA, J. :- Rule. Learned APP waives service for the 1st respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent waives service. Taken up for final hearing forthwith.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the offences registered under Sections 292(a), 506(II), 509 of IPC and under Sections 66(A), 66(C) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the applicant. The 2nd respondent is the complainant.

3. Perusal of the complaint on the basis of which offence was registered shows that there appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the 2nd respondent and in fact an offence has been separately registered against the applicant at the instance of the 2nd respondent under Section 498A, 323 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Reliance is placed on a Compromise Deed dated 31st March, 2012 executed by and between the applicant and the 2nd respondent. The compromise records that the parties agreed to file a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Kanpur for seeking divorce by mutual consent. The 2nd respondent agreed to file an affidavit for getting the criminal proceedings disposed of in view of the settlement. There is specific reference to the offence subject matter of this Application under the Compromise Deed.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed an affidavit stating that there is a settlement between herself and the applicant. In the affidavit, she has stated that the applicant has assured that he will not interfere in her personal life and will not blackmail her in whatsoever manner. In view of the assurance given by the applicant and in view of the settlement, the 2nd respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings

6. The matrimonial dispute led to registration of the offence. Now the parties have settled the dispute and agreed to apply for divorce by mutual consent in view of the compromise. In view of the assurances given by the applicant, the 2nd respondent has given no objection for quashing the proceedings. In view of the settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose. Hence, this is a fit case where powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserve to be exercised.

7. Hence, we pass the following order :-

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

Application allowed.