cwp-135.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.135 OF 2025 1) Vijaykumar S/o Suryakant Kajve, Age-36 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Hivregalli, Near Satpute Talim, Ahmednagar, 2) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suryakant Kajve, Age-61 years, Occu:Household, R/o-Hivregalli, Near Satpute Talim, Ahmednagar, 3) Sudip S/o Pradip Bhandare, Age-25 years, Occu: , R/o-Dharangaon, Taluka-Kopargaon Dist-Ahmednagar, 4) Pradip S/o- Eknath Bhandare, Age-64 years, Occu:-, R/o-Dharangaon, Taluka-Kopargaon Dist-Ahmednagar, 5) Tulshidas S/o Eknath Bhandare, Age-68 years, Occu:-, R/o-Hivregalli, Near Satpute Talim, Ahmednagar, 6) Aruna W/o Tulshidas Bhandare, Age-59 years, Occu:-, R/o-Hivregalli, Near Satpute Talim, Ahmednagar, 7) Akshay S/o Tulshidas Bhandare, Age-35 years, Occu:-, R/o-Gograsavadi, Jijai Nagar, Dombivali East, District-Thane, 2025:BHC-AUG:11225-DB cwp-135.25 2 8) Aishwarya W/o Akshay Bhandare, Age-30 years, Occu:-, R/o-Gograsavadi, Jijai Nagar, Dombivali East, District-Thane. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) Nayana W/o Vijaykumar Kajve, Age-29 years, Occu:Service, R/o-H. No.119, Bagroja, Hudco, Near Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Akshay P. Lohade Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Ms. Siddhi Atul Kothari Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 28th MARCH, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] : 1. Present Petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 488 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, arising out of the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 278 of 2023, registered with Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar on 9th March 2023, for the cwp-135.25 3 offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners and respondent No.2 submitted that the dispute has been settled through mediation between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who are the husband and wife. Respondent No.2 has agreed to be the party for divorce petition under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which would be submitted with appropriate Court. She also agreed to give no objection to the present matter for quashment of the proceedings and therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, they prayed for quashment of the proceedings. 3. By our detailed order dated 12th March 2025, we had directed the petitioners and respondent No.2 to produce the documents showing the order recording the terms of settlement by the concerned Court i.e. referral Court in view of Rule 25(1) of the Mediation Rules, 2006. What was produced before this Court at that time, was the only terms and conditions settled in the mediation. This Court had taken note of various rules in the said order and observed that Rule 25(1) of the Mediation Rules, cwp-135.25 4 2006, appears to have been not followed or observed by the concerned Court. 4. Pursuant to the said order dated 12th March 2025, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.2 produced the photocopy of order dated 25th March 2025, passed by the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, recording the terms of settlement filed along with Mediation Report Exhibit-20. Interesting point to be noted here is that when the matter was on board on 12th March 2025, photocopy of another certified copy was produced, for which it appears that application was given on 21st June 2024 and the said copy was received on 2nd July 2024. Now, today when the photocopy has been produced, it appears that for that purpose fresh application was given on 26th March 2025 for getting the certified copy and on the same day the certified copy was issued. This clearly shows that on 12th March 2025 the terms of mediation were not at all recorded by the trial Court / referral Court. Only after this Court had passed the said order, it appears that the parties appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereupon those terms of settlement were read and recorded in view of Rule 25(1) of the Mediation Rules. At the cost of cwp-135.25 5 repetition, we are reiterating that till the terms of settlement of the dispute are accepted / admitted by the parties concerned in view of Rule 25(1) of the Mediation Rules, entire mediation process is confidential. The certified copies of the terms of settlement cannot be used by any party prior to those terms of compromise read and recorded as per the said Rule. Thus, the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have tried to mislead the Court on 12th March 2025. 5. Another important fact to be noted is that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, both, are the employees working in the District Court, Ahmednagar. They cannot use their relationship with other employees, to take out the certified copies as per their wish. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 have not given any explanation, upon instructions from their respective clients, as to how before 25th March 2025, those terms were not got read and recorded though the report of the learned Mediator was submitted to the trial Court on 7th November 2023. We deprecate such practice of shortcuts. When cwp-135.25 6 legal proceeding and procedure is available, then each party should adopt the same. 7. Now, the dispute between the husband and wife is settled and the wife has no objection for quashing the entire proceedings and therefore, this can be considered as a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, because of the conduct of the parties, especially petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, we impose the costs while allowing the Petition. Hence the following order:- O R D E R (I) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No. 488 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, arising out of the First Information Report vide Crime No. 278 of 2023, registered with Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar on 9th March 2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside as against petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 i.e. - cwp-135.25 7 1) Vijaykumar S/o Suryakant Kajve, 2) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suryakant Kajve, 3) Sudip S/o Pradip Bhandare, 4) Pradip S/o- Eknath Bhandare, 5) Tulshidas S/o Eknath Bhandare, 6) Aruna W/o Tulshidas Bhandare, 7) Akshay S/o Tulshidas Bhandare and 8) Aishwarya W/o Akshay Bhandare. (III) Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), each, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Ahmednagar, on or before 30th April 2025. (IV) The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ahmednagar to inform about the deposit of the said cost amount to this Court, within one week thereafter. (V) Place the matter for compliance on 8th May 2025. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/APR25