Quashed

Rochiram Pribhadas Kalwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2006WP/682/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay at Bombay, in its criminal appellate jurisdiction, quashed criminal complaint C.R.No. 408 of 2004 and cognizance proceedings C.C.No.524/PW/2005. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute arising under Section 498-A of IPC, continuing the proceedings served no purpose, and the complaintant explicitly expressed a d

What did the court decide?

C.C.No.524/PW/2005 pending before Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund and C.R.No. 408 of 2004 of Mulund Police Station were quashed and set aside.

Rochiram Pribhadas Kalwani and Ors. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.682 OF 2006

¶3

 Rochiram Pribhdas
 Kalwani and Ors. ..Petitioners
 Vs.

¶4

 State of Maharashtra
 and Or. ..Respondents

¶5

 Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani counsel with Dinesh Tiwari
 Advocate for Petitioners
 Mr.I.S.Thakur A.P.P. for State.
 Mr.S.I.Jayakar for Respondent No.3

¶6

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE AND
 SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATE : APRIL 4, 2006

¶7

P.C.

¶8

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
 (original accused), learned A.P.P. for the State
 and learned advocate appearing for the respondent
 no.3. The respondent no.3 who is the original
 complainant in C.R.No. 408 of 2004 of Mulund
 Police Station, is present in person. The said
 case is under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC.

¶9

 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of
 C.R.No. 408 of 2004 of Mulund Police Station. The
 learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
 respondent no.3-original complainant, state that
 the matter has been amicably settled amongst

¶10

 - 2 -

¶11

 themselves.

¶12

 3. The proceedings i.c. C.C.No.524/PW/2005
 between the parties were pending before the
 Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund, Mumbai. Divorce
 proceedings i.e. Petition No. A-498 of 2005 were
 also pending between son of Petitioners Nos.1 and 2
 and Respondent No.3 before the Family Court Bandra,

¶13

 Mumbai. During the course of hearing in the
 divorce proceedings, an application came to be
 filed whereby both the parties consented to
 withdraw all the legal proceedings and various
 litigation filed before all the courts.
 Ultimately, consent terms were filed by both the
 parties in the divorce petition wherein both the
 parties inter alia agreed to quash the present
 case. The copy of the consent terms is annexed to
 the petition.

¶14

 4. It is stated on behalf of the complainant as
 well as the petitioners that settlement has been
 arrived at between the parties. It is further
 stated that in view of the settlement, the
 complainant does not wish to proceed with the
 proceedings i.e. C.C.No.524/PW/2005 arising out of
 C.R.No.408 of 2004 of Mulund Police Station. The

¶15

 - 3 -

¶16

 complainant (Respondent No.3) who is present in

¶17

 person, states that as per the consent terms, she
 has received the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs and she
 does not wish to prosecute her complaint against
 any of the accused.

¶18

 5. In view of the fact that parties have settled
 the disputes, in our view, no purpose would be
 achieved by continuing with the proceedings as the
 complainant does not wish to pursue the matter any
 further. In the decision of the Apex Court in the

¶19

 case of B.S.Joshi and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

¶20

reported in Criminal Law Journal 2003 Page 2028

¶21

 which case is also under Section 498-A of IPC, it
 is observed that if for the purpose of securing the
 ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. would become
 necessary, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a
 bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In view
 of these observations of the Apex Court and facts
 and circumstances of this case, the proceedings

¶22

 i.e. C.C.No.524/PW/2005 pending before learned
 Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund and C.R.No. 408
 of 2004 of Mulund Police Station are quashed and

¶23

 set aside.

¶24

 . Writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

 [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.]

¶26

 - 4 -

¶27

 [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Rochiram Pribhadas Kalwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rochiram Pribhadas Kalwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Michael Tony Nigam and Others

Rameshwar B. Vishwakarma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Francis Desouza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Kifayatulla Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Brahmadutt Singh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bharat Brahmaduti Singh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra