Allowed

Jamilabi Yakub Naik and Ors. v. Afrin Sohail Naik and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2011APL/1120/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Bombay quashed criminal proceedings initiated under IPC sections 498-A and 506 for domestic harassment. The court noted the matter was settled amicably by the parties. While acknowledging the private nature of the dispute, it dismissed the application as a public law matter but ordered costs to be borne by the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings qua the applicants are quashed; applicants to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 into Police Welfare Fund.

Jamilabi Yakub Naik and Ors. Vs Afrin Sohail Naik and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2011

¶5

Jamilabai Yakub Naik and others Applicants versus Afrin Sohil Naik and another Respondents

¶6

Mr.G.K.Jadhav for applicants. Mr.Chandrakant Yadav for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 24^th November 2011

¶8

PC :

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶10

By way of present application the applicants pray for quashing the criminal proceedings qua the applicants. The FIR in question came to be lodged at the instance of respondent no.1 for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.. The respondent no.1 on 21st September 2002 married to one Sohil Yakub Naik. The applicant no.1 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.2 is the daughter-in-law, applicant no.3 is the brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is wife of applicant no.3. Respondent no.1 alleged that the applicants-accused ill-treated her for demand of flat and furniture. The applicants were arrested and subsequently were released on bail. The husband of respondent no.1 Sohil, however, is absconding and the criminal case, as far as Sohil is concerned, is separated. Charge is framed and the case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai.

¶11

The matter is now amicably settled between the applicants and respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit reiterating the

¶12

¶13

same and stating that she has no objection to set aside the criminal proceedings as against the present applicants. The applicant nos.2 and 4 are present in Court. Respondent no.1 is also present in the Court. Respondent no.1 states that she has gone through the contents of the affidavit and she has understood the same. She further states that she do not want to proceed as against present applicants and has no objection if the complaint is quashed as against applicants herein.

¶14

It can be thus seen that the matter has been settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime.

¶15

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4-SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice and criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute.

¶16

Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua the applicants, however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicants by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on record of the present matter.

¶17

(R.V.MORE, J.)

Jamilabi Yakub Naik and Ors. v. Afrin Sohail Naik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamilabi Yakub Naik and Ors. v. Afrin Sohail Naik 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

Kuldeep Singh K. Nath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pawan Kumar Ruia Vs Global Trade Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Ashok Jaykrushna Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Moid Azhar and Anr. Vs Shehnaz Begum Abdul Moid Azhar and Ors.

Prakash T. Tanna Vs Prakashchandra Kamalnath Dubey and Ors.

D.B. Enterprise and Ors. Vs S.N. Gaikwad and Ors.