Vinod S/O Udhao Makhijani vs. State Of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Gittikhadan P.S.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Criminal Application [apl] No.592 of 2011

• 1. Vinod son of Udhav Makhijani, aged about 42 years, occupation business,
• 2. Rishi son of Udhav Makhijani, aged about 34 years, occupation service,

applicant nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Plot No. 29, Godhni Road, Nagpur. .... Applicants.

Versus

• 1. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur.
• 2. Smt. Pooja Vinod Makhijani, aged about 38 years, occupation service, resident of Flat No. 520, Sunder Jeevn Apartments, Clarke Town, Nagpur. .... Respondents.

*****

Mr. V.S. Mishra, Adv., for the applicants.

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.

2

Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv., for respondent no.2.

*****

CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. Date : 09th Jan., 2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. Present petition arises out of the matrimonial dispute.

3. Terms of Settlement placed on record in Hindu Marriage Petition No. A-1030 of 2009 filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, are placed on record.

4. It is seen that the Respondent No.2 - the wife has been given an apartment and permanent maintenance for child in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 [rupees one lakh only].

5. The Respondent No.2 - wife is present in the Court and accepts the position that the matter has been settled to her satisfaction and she agrees for quashing of the First Information Report No.124/2010 arising out of the matrimonial incidences and grudges.

6. Considering that parties have settled, the fate of criminal case even if it proceeds, can very well be visualized.

7. The fate of prosecution case always depends on the version, urge and worth of a witness.

8. Since the complainant herself now is content with the settlement, and does not want to proceed with the prosecution, it is a fit case to quash the prosecution.

9. Therefore, Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [a].

JUDGE

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|

Cri. Appln. No.592/2011