In an appeal under Section 498-A IPC where the original complainant-wife sought divorce by mutual consent, the High Court held that the criminal case should be quashed as the allegations appeared to be false and reconciled with the parties signing consent terms.
Quashing of Sessions Case No. 684 of 2005 and the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
| IN THE HIGH COURT O |
F JUDICATURE AT B |
OMBAY | |
|---|---|---|---|
| APPELLATE | JURIS | DICTION | |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION |
NO. 109 OF NO. 555 OF |
2007 2007 |
|
| Shantaram | Gopal Sangare and ors. Vs. |
..Appellants | |
| The State of | Maharashtra | ..Respondent | |
| Mr. | P.B. Shah |
for a |
ppellants. |
| Mr. | A.S. Shitole, |
APP for |
State. |
| CORAM: | B.H. MARLAPALLE, |
J. | |
| Date | : August 22, |
2007. | |
| P.C.: | |||
| 1. | This appeal against the order of | conviction | |
| and | sentence for the offe |
nce punishable under |
Section |
| 498-A | read with Section 34 |
of IPC was admitted |
on |
| 20/2/2007. | During the pend |
ency of this appeal, |
the |
| original | complainant-wife and |
appellant no.4 |
- |
| Yashwant | Gopal Sangare decid |
ed to take divorce |
by |
| mutual | consent. The husband |
had already |
filed |
| Petition | No.A-1333 of 2004 for |
divorce and in the |
said |
| petition | consent terms signed |
by the parties |
on |
| 9/7/2007 | came to be submitted. |
A copy of the |
said |
| consent | terms duly signed |
by the original co |
mplainant |
:2:
has been placed on record in this appeal. It is
marked as "X" for identification.
| 2. | Mr. | Sh | ah the l | earned counsel for th | e | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| appellants, | therefore, | pray | for qua |
s | hing the |
criminal | ||
| case | in | which | th | e a |
ppellants have |
b | een convicted |
by |
| relying | upon | the |
law | laid |
down in the |
case of |
B.S. | |
| Joshi | and | ors. vs. |
Sta | te of Haryana |
and anr. |
[AIR | ||
| 2003 | SC | 1386] |
and | more so b |
e | cause the |
original | |
| complainant | and t |
he | acc | used no.4 |
h | ave already |
decided | |
| to | take | divorce by |
consent. | The wife |
along with |
her | ||
| father | is | present | b | efore | the court a |
n | d she has |
stated |
| that | she | has |
will | ingly | signed the |
consent terms |
after | |
| they | were | understood |
by | her and she |
has consente |
d for |
||
| quashing | t | he co |
mp | laint | in which th |
e | appellants |
have |
been convicted and which was initiated on the basis of
her complaint in the concerned police station.
| 3. | H | ence, | the appellants’ | prayer | for quashi | ng of | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sessions | Case | No. | 684 | of | 2005 | is | hereby | allowed | and |
| consequently | this | appeal | als | o | st | ands | allowed | by | |
| setting | aside | the impu |
gned | order | of | c | onviction | and | |
| sentenced | dated | 13/12/2006 | passed | by | the | learned |
:3:
| Additional | Sessions | Jud | ge, | Gr. | Bombay | in | S | essions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | No.684 of |
2005. | The | bail | bonds |
of | all | the | |
| appellants | would | stand | can | celled. | In | cas |
e | the | |
| articles | belonging | to | the | w | ife | are | lying | in | the |
| Muddemal | property | with | the | Ses | sions | Court, | she | is | at |
| liberty | to apply |
for | r | eturn | of | the | same | and | the |
learned Sessions Judge would pass an appropriate order
expeditiously on such an application.
survive and the same shall stand disposed as such.
(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 498-A IPC should be allowed upon filing of mutual consent divorce petition.
Whether the outer court can quash criminal proceedings instituted against the accused after they voluntarily decide to take mutual consent divorce.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and ors. vs State of Haryana and anr.Relied on¶7
B.S. Joshi and ors. vs State of Haryana and anr. [AIR 2003 SC 1386] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shantaram Gopal Sangare and ors.
The State of Maharashtra
B.H. Marlapalle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
