1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2010 1. Utkarsh S/o.Pradip Ghodake, Age-21 years, Occu-Education , 2. Vijay Dilip Yenare, Age-22 years, Occu-Education, 3. Sadhana W/o.Pradip Ghodake, Age-42 years, Occu-Household, 4. Pradip S/o.Narayan Ghodake, Age-47 years, Occu-Service, All above are R/o.Devdaithan, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Nagar Taluka Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Sushma Balasaheb Sasane, @ Sushama w/o.Utkarsh Ghodake, Age-21 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Devdaithan, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent no.1 Mr.A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2 2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed this Court u/s.482 of The Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR No.409/2009, registered in Shrigonda Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 363, 376, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. The said FIR was lodged at the instance of 2nd respondent who is now married wife of first applicant. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State, and learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 3. Rule. 4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the application is heard finally at the stage of admission. 5. Such of the facts which are necessary for the consideration of this application can be summarized as : FIR bearing CR No. 409/2009 came to be registered at Shrigonda Police Station on the complaint of 2nd respondent on 02/11/2009, wherein it is alleged that on 05/10/2009, when she had been to Shirur, in Indira Gandhi Square, first applicant met her. He was in jeep. He shown his desire 3 of marriage to 2nd respondent as he loved her. As she denied to accompany the first applicant, she was forcibly put in the said jeep and was taken to Kolhapur via Pune. At that time, applicant no.2 was also present in that jeep. They reached at Kolhapur in the night, where in the temple of Mahalakshmi, they performed the marriage. Thereafter, they stayed in Kolhapur and in the near vicinity for about 2 days. Thereafter on 8th, they returned to Shrigonda. The first applicant called his parents by giving call and intimated about marriage to his parents. It is further alleged that on 09/10/2009, the complainant was taken to Pune, where since 10/10/2009 to 30/10/2009, they stayed with one Rahul Sable, the relative of applicant no.1. Physical contacts were established between them during the said period. On 30/10/2009, the first applicant called his parents at Pune. The parents of first applicant brought the 2nd respondent at Devdaithan and then dropped her at her parents house. Hence the complaint. 6. It appears that thereafter the parents of complainant as well as parents of first applicant appeared before this Court when the bail applications were moved by all the applicants. At that time, assurance was given by the parents of both the parties that they will see that the marriage of first applicant will perform with 2nd respondent and accordingly the marriage was performed on 10/12/2009 as per the Buddhist Rites. The 2nd respondent has also filed one affidavit before the Taluka Magistrate Shrigonda that because of some mis-understanding, she has lodged the complaint, 4 as she was under fear that the first applicant may not marry her. But, first applicant has married her and she has no complaints against first applicant. 7. Now the point which was urged before this Court that the dispute between the first applicant, 2nd respondent and their parents was amicably settled and the 2nd respondent is accepted by the parents of the first applicant as their daughter in law and they are enjoying happy married life. U/S. 320 of The Cr.P.C., the alleged offence against these applicants is not compoundable and even the Court can not grant permission to compound these non compoundable offences. Relying on the ratio as laid down in the matter of B.S.Joshi versus State of Haryana, reported in 2004(1) Bombay Cases Reporter (Cri.) 93, on the observations in para no.8,9 and 10, it is urged that as the alleged offence against these applicants is not compoundable in view of the provisions u/s. 320 of The Cr.P.C., but as now the parties have settled the dispute between themselves, it is but natural that, even the parties, if put to the trial, the 2nd respondent will not support the case of prosecution and ultimately the trial will end in acquittal. As the parties have settled the dispute between themselves amicably, and now the 2nd wife is married wife of first applicant, to meet the ends of justice, the FIR require to be quashed under the extra ordinary jurisdiction to be exercised u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent states across the bar on 5 instructions of 2nd respondent, who is present in the Court alongwith her in laws that she is enjoying the happy married life in her matrimonial house. In view of this, in the interest of justice, but not as a precedent, the FIR lodged at the instance of 2nd respondent, require to be quashed and set aside. As the assurance is also given on the part of parents of the first applicant that they will take care of 2nd respondent as their daughter in law. In view of this, FIR bearing CR No.409/2009, registered in Shrigonda Police Station is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside. It is hereby made clear that this order is passed considering the exceptional circumstances of this application and not as a precedent or rule. With this clarification, application stands disposed of. 9. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. Application is allowed by setting aside the FIR bearing CR No.409/2009, registered in Shrigonda Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, against these application. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.154-10