2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B.R. GAVAI AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
Chhaya w/o. Ukundrao Parteki & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Writ Petition No.303 of 2014
22nd April, 2014
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. ANIL MARDIKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. S.S. JACHAK
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Penal Code (1860), Ss.294, 323, 341, 506(b) - Quashing of proceedings - Offence relating to assault and giving abuses in filthy language - Petitioner-accused is a lady employed in police department - Offence committed by her on account of complainant lady suspecting illicit relation between her husband and petitioner - Both ladies resolved their dispute - However, an element of public law involved to some extent - Petitioner is employed and having two children - Interest of justice would be served if petitioner learns a lesson - Hence, proceedings quashed subject to condition that petitioner donates Rs.1,00,000/- to police welfare fund. (Paras 9, 10)
Cases Cited:
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 ALL SCR 775=(2008) 4 SCC 582 [Para 6,8]
JUDGMENT
B. R. GAVAI, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court for setting aside all the proceedings initiated under Crime No. 18/2009 registered by the Koradi Police Station, Nagpur against the petitioner no.1 in view of amicable settlement in between the parties and for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated pursuant to Crime No. 18/09 and for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 10.8.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 730/09 and for disposing of the Criminal Appeal No. 248/10.
3. The facts, in brief, in the present case are as under :-
The petitioner no.1 and the husband of the petitioner no.2 are employed in the Police Department. The petitioner no.2 is working as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner no.2 suspected illicit relations between the petitioner no.1 and her husband. An FIR came to be registered by petitioner no.2 stating therein that when she was going to the house of petitioner no.1 to find out as to whether her husband was visiting the petitioner no.1's house, the petitioner no.1 assaulted her and abused her in filthy language. On the basis of the oral report lodged by the petitioner no.2, an FIR came to be lodged. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294 & 506(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned J.M.F.C., Nagpur at the conclusion of the trial, convicted the petitioner no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294 and 506(b) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for one month, six months, three months and one year respectively along with the fine. The matter was carried in appeal by the petitioner no.1 before the learned Sessions Judge. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the matter was sought to be compounded. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable and as such, rejected the said application. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Heard Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S.S. Jachak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
6. Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot .vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 : [2008 ALL SCR 775], since the parties have settled the dispute, this is a fit case where this Court should invoke jurisdiction and exercise powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and giving an end to the criminal proceedings.
7. Smt. S.S. Jachak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. She submits that the conduct of the petitioner no.1 is not such which would permit the discretion to be exercised by this Court in her favour under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She prays for rejection of the petition.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot .vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 : [2008 ALL SCR 775] has held that when the dispute is purely private in nature and settled between the parties and there is no element of public law involved, this Court can invoke jurisdiction and exercise powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and giving an end to criminal proceedings.
9. No doubt that in the present case there is an element of public law involved to some extent. However, it is to be noted that the incident took place out of some misunderstanding between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2. It appears that both the ladies have resolved their dispute. The petitioner no.1 is employed and she has two children, a daughter - aged 18 years and a son - aged 14 years. Apart from providing for education of the children, the petitioner no.1 would also be required to make arrangements for the wedding of daughter who is of marriageable age. Therefore, we find that it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner no.1 must learn a lesson.
10. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i). However, the same shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner no.1 donates an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and deposits the same in the Police Welfare Fund of Nagpur Police Commissionerate within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner no.1 shall deposit the receipt thereof in the proceedings of the present matter. In case of failure, the order passed by us shall stand automatically recalled.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.