Allowed

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. v. Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2010APPLN/3475/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute, the Court, relying on reported Supreme Court decisions and a filed declaration of settlement, held that the matter being purely personal could be settled amicably. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and related proceedings to

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 292 of 2009 of Agripada Police Station and proceedings relating thereto, C.C. No. 341/PW/2010, were quashed.

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. Vs Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr appln 3475-10.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3475 OF 2010

¶5

Irfan Afaq Shaikh & Ors

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

Vs

¶8

Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh & Anr

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Satyaram Gaud for the Applicants

¶11

Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶13

DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER,2010.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original
accused and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 1-
original complainant is present in person.

¶16

2The applicants are seeking quashing of C.R.No. 292 of
2009 of Agripada Police Station and the proceedings relating
thereto being Criminal Case No. 341/PW/2010 which is pending
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai.

¶17

3.Respondent no. 1 was married to applicant no. 1.
Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between them. On
account of this dispute, FIR came to be lodged by respondent

¶18

¶19

cr appln 3475-10.doc

¶20

no.1 against the applicants at Agripada Police Station which
was numbered as CR No. 292 of 2009. The said case is under
Sections 498(A) and 406, 506(2) read with 34 of IPC.

¶21

4The learned advocate for respondent no. 1 states that
the matter has been amicably settled between the applicants
and respondent no. 1, hence the FIR and proceedings relating
thereto be quashed. Respondent no.1-wife states that the
matter has been amicably settled between her and applicants
and she had filed declaration dated 28th January, 2010 to
that effect, hence she states the FIR and the proceedings
relating thereto be quashed.

¶22

5.In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofMadan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is
observed as follows:

¶23

"We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable
that in disputes where the question involved is of
a purely personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even
in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly
over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that
the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more

¶24

¶25

cr appln 3475-10.doc

¶26

effective and meaningful litigation. This is a
common sense approach to the matter based on ground
of realities and bereft of the technicalities of
the law".

¶27

In the said case, application was filed for quashing of
FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on
account of compromise entered into between the complainant
and the accused, the said case came to be quashed.

¶28

6In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977
Cr.L.J. 1125the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power,

¶29

the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power
is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

¶30

7In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale
Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it

¶31

¶32

cr appln 3475-10.doc

¶33

was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is
an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by
the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers.

¶34

7. Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the declaration filed, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto.

¶35

8 C.R. No. 292 of 2009 of Agripada Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 341/PW/2010 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, is quashed.

¶36

9. Application is disposed of.

¶37

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶38

¶39

cr appln 3475-10.doc

¶40

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. v. Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Afaq Shaikh and Ors. v. Iram Naz Irfan Shaikh and Anr.

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

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sahdeo Dattu Esapure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somshankar Gurulingappa Algundgi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shashikant Vitthal Hegade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ratankumar Ranaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.