- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2008 Chetan Lalji Patel ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.J.C.Kini i/b Mr.Suresh Debey for the petitioner Mr.K.Andrew for Respondent No.2 Ms A.T.Jhaveri for A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 12,2008 : AUGUST 12,2008 : AUGUST 12,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the last date. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.942 of 2006 on the basis of F.I.R lodged by the second Respondent alleging commission of offences under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. One of the grounds on which the order of quashing is sought is the subsequent settlement between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he has married to the second respondent on 24th March 2008. An affidavit has been filed by the second Respondent affirming the said fact. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit dated 15th July 2008, she has stated that her marriage with the petitioner has been solemnised on 24th March 2008. The certificate of registration issued under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act,1998 and - 2 - the rules framed thereunder has been produced for perusal of the court. A xerox copy thereof is produced on record. The allegation made by the second respondent in the F.I.R. lodged on 10th December 2005 is that the second Respondent was known to the petitioner for a period of six years. It is stated that on 26th December 2004 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner called up the second respondent and suggested that they should get married at Siddhivinayak temple at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The second respondent stated that accordingly she met the petitioner at Hiranandani Garden, at Powai. At that time the petitioner gave a ‘Mangalsutra’ to the second respondent and the petitioner took her to the Siddhivinayak temple. It is stated that in the Siddhivinayak temple, the petitioner told her that they have become husband and wife. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner and the second Respondent maintained physical relationship. It is stated that after few days, the petitioner started avoiding the second respondent and was not responding to the phone calls made by the second respondent. It is alleged that the second respondent learnt that the petitioner’s father had arranged petitioner’s marriage with a lady by name Jasmina. It is stated that the second respondent took the matter to the police. The petitioner and his father were called at the police station. It is stated that the petitioner’s father agreed before the police that the marriage of the petitioner will be solemnised with the second respondent. It is stated that though engagement ceremony of the petitioner was cancelled, - 3 - subsequently the petitioner’s father declined to allow the petitioner to get married with the second respondent. The second respondent issued notice to the petitioner and the said Jasmina and thereafter lodged a complaint on 10th December 2005 alleging commission of aforesaid offences. As stated earlier, according to the case of the second respondent, on 26th December 2004 the petitioner had taken her to Siddhivinayak temple. 3. The prayer for quashing is on the basis of the subsequent settlement between the petitioner and the second respondent and solemnization of their marriage. The learned A.P.P opposed the petition by contending that the offence alleged is of serious nature. 4. The F.I.R discloses that even prior to lodging of the F.I.R for a period of six years, the petitioner and the second respondent were known to each other. Even according to the case of the second respondent, it is the petitioner’s father who opposed the proposed marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent. Now, there is an affidavit filed by the second respondent. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit the second respondent has stated thus : "2. I say that I have read the contents of the above writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is true that the matter settled, therefore, I do not wish to proceed the - 4 - case against the petitioner and I have no any further complaint against him. I state that I and the petitioner who is the original accused have got married on the 24th March 2008. In view of the above, I do not want to prosecute the complaint any more." 5. It is well settled law that power under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in very rare cases. In the present case, even prior to filing of the F.I.R the petitioner and the second respondent were known to each other for six years. Apart from the fact that the F.I.R has been belatedly filed after 10 to 11 months, now the petitioner and the second respondent have married on 24th March 2008. As stated earlier, even a certificate of registration of the marriage is produced before this court apart from the statement made by the second respondent. Apart from the fact that continuation of the proceeding will not serve any purpose, the continuation of the prosecution will be against the interests of the petitioner and the second respondent as now they have got married on 24th March 2008. Continuation of prosecution will cause undue harassment to both of them. 6. These are the peculiar facts of this case which require interference by this court under section 482 of the said Code. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). - 5 - 8. Parties and the concerned court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE