ANSHUMAN AGRAWAL Vs. MEENAKSHI ANSHUMAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave, J.) on 16.3.2009 passed the followig order:- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is not a whisper about the alleged offence having taken place at Vadodara. He places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, AIR 2004 SC 4286 and submits that the issuance of process issued by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction.

(2.) RULE.

(3.) THE Court is of the view that though the offences alleged are not capable of being compounded, however as the parties have dropped their grudge against each other and have decided to part happily with the terms and conditions mentioned in the divorce deed and when it is the submission of the learned advocate for the complainant wife respondent that the complaint was filed under misconception, I am of the considered view that permitting the complaint to be taken to its logical conclusion would lead to hardship to parties and the dispute as such cannot be said to be a dispute which has otherwise of the serious consequences for the society. As such the complaint, in light of the agreement between the parties, is required to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.