Allowed

Achala Vijay Shrivastav v. Vijay Rajendra Shrivastav and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2006WP/574/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a criminal case involving adultery and criminal breach of trust. Ruling on 18/4/2006, the court allowed the petition after parties settled their matrimonial dispute, agreed to mutual divorce, and the wife expressed no wish to continue proceedings. The rule was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

The rule made returnable forthwith was made absolute, quashing the criminal case and disposing of the petition accordingly.

Achala Vijay Shrivastav Vs Vijay Rajendra Shrivastav… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 of Coram, appearance, Court’s
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders.

¶3

 Mr.G.R.Hegde for the Petitioner.

¶4

 Mr.Sanjay Sinha for the Respondent Nos.
 1 to 4.

¶5

 Mr.Rajesh More, APP. for the State.

¶6

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J.
DATED : 18/4/2006.

¶7

 P.C.

¶8

 1. Heard both sides.

¶9

 2. Affidavit filed by the respondent
 Nos. 1 to 4 dated 17.4.2006 is taken

¶10

 on record.

¶11

 3. Rule. By consent, rule made
 returnable forthwith.

¶12

 4. This is a petition filed by the
 petitioner wife Achala for quashing
 Criminal case No.474/M/2003 pending on
 the file of Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶13

 (II) read with 34 of the I.P.C. The

¶14

:2:

¶15

 petitioner. It appears from the record

¶16

 that the parties have settled their

¶17

 matrimonial dispute and had filed

¶18

 consent terms in M.J. Petition

¶19

 No.A-1903/2003 filed by the petitioner

¶20

 in the Family Court. By the consent

¶21

 terms the present respondent No.1 has

¶22

 agreed to pay Rs.2/- lacs as permanent

¶23

 maintenance to the petitioner and the
 parties have agreed to withdraw the
 allegations made against each other and
 obtained divorce by mutual consent.

¶24

 Since the wife does not wish to

¶25

 continue with the criminal proceeding

¶26

 and since the same is settled, I am
 inclined to allow this petition. In

¶27

 the circumstances, rule is made

¶28

 absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶29

 Petition stands disposed off

¶30

 accordingly.

¶31

(R. S. MOHITE, J.)

Achala Vijay Shrivastav v. Vijay Rajendra Shrivastav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achala Vijay Shrivastav v. Vijay Rajendra Shrivastav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Nandiwadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amani Gopal Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sampat Dattajirao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Yasin @ Abu Mohd. Nasir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Us Todani and Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha Vs Haribhau Babasaheb Nimbalkar and Anr.

Prabodh Narottamdas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.