SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2016 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 8763 of 2014). D/d. 22.7.2016.
Sujoy Tushar Saha and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another - Respondents
For the Appellants :- Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Sumer Nath Khanna, Ajay Kumar Talesara, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar and Arpit Rai, Advocates.
For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. The only allegation made against the appellants was, that the complainant was compelled to incur expenses to the tune of L 1,55,000/- in the 'Roka Ceremony' preceding the engagement ceremony, between the complainant's daughter and appellant No.1,
and that, having enjoyed the hospitality of the complainant, the appellants had intentionally and deliberately broken the ensuing matrimonial alliance.
and that, having enjoyed the hospitality of the complainant, the appellants had intentionally and deliberately broken the ensuing matrimonial alliance.
3. Despite repeated notices having been issued by this Court to the complainants, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and despite the said respondents having been duly served, no one has entered appearance on their behalf. It seems, that the complainants are no longer interested in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane at Thane dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-11 at page 53 of the paper book), depicting that the appellants have handed over a demand draft in the sum of L 1,55,000/- drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited bearing No. 105070 in the name of the complainant/respondent no.2 - Chandra Shekhar Kohli. It is therefore apparent, that the entire amount allegedly spent by the complainant on the occasion of the 'Roka Ceremony' of his daughter (with appellant no.1-Sujoy Tushar Saha), has since been disbursed by the appellants to the complainant.
5. In view of the above, after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied, that nothing further survives in the proceedings initiated by the complainants, against the appellants. The said proceedings emanating from Crime No. I-185/2012 under Section 420/34 IPC registered at Kasaravadavali Police Station, would serve no ones cause, and need not be allowed to engage any further judicial time. In view of the above, criminal proceedings initiated by the complainants against the appellants deserve to be quashed, and are hereby quashed.
The instant appeal is accordingly allowed.
------------------------------------------------------
GeekUpd8 Doc Id
COMMENTS