JITENDRA S BHADORIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the Respondent no. 2 shital Bhadoria, who is appearing in person. The respondent no. 2 is identified by the counsel for the applicants. The Applicant no. 1 is the husband and Applicant nos. 2 to 5 are the family members including mother and father of applicant no. 1. After the marriage of the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 there was a marital discord leading to filing of various cases. On the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2, offence has been registered against the applicants under sections 498-A, 406, 354, 506 read with 34 of IPC, giving rise to the Criminal proceeding No. 543/p/03 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, vikhroli, Bombay. The applicant no. 1 had filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court of bandra. The parties to the said Divorce Petition viz. the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2, filed consent Terms and jointly prayed for grant of divorce by mutual consent. The Family Court has dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce. The parties had also agreed for the lumpsum amount of permanent maintenance which has been deposited by the applicant no. 1 in the family Court, which could only be withdrawn by the respondent no. 2, after passing of a decree of divorce and disposal of the criminal case, pending before 34th Court of Metropolitan magistrate, at Vikhroli. Pursuant to the said consent terms, an application was made for compounding, but the same came to be rejected because the offences involved are not compoundable. In this factual matrix, present criminal application has been filed under section 482 of Cr. P. C. for permitting the parties to compound the offence and for appropriate orders. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of the supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 S. C. 1386 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S. C. ) ] in the case of B. S. Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Harayana, which takes a view that section 320 of Cr. P. C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High court under section 482. It further laid down that for the purposes of securing ends of justice sec. 320 of Cr. P. C. would not be a bar to exercise the power of Quashing. In the facts of the present case, I am of the view that granting the joint request made by the parties in regard to the quashing of the proceedings, would be in furtherance of cause of justice. The present application is thus allowed in the interest of justice and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Application allowed.