Quashed

Rajmani S/O Gomtiprasad Shukla and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2013WP/1144/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the quashing of pending criminal proceedings instituted pursuant to an FIR arising from matrimonial disputes involving allegations of bigamy and sexual offenses, where parties had settled and sought divorce by mutual consent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings including Criminal Case Nos. 52 of 2011 and 245 of 2011 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mumbai are quashed.

Rajmani S/O Gomtiprasad Shukla and Ors. Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

wp1144-45.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1144 OF 2011

¶4

Rajmani S/o.Gomtiprasad Shukla & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2011

¶7

Deepak Rajmani Shukla .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.A.M.Saraogi for petitioners Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State Mr.Mukesh Pabari for respondent No.2 in both.

¶9

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 9^th April 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1] These two petitions which have been filed and which are

¶12

pending in this Court question the proceedings which are instituted pursuant to F.I.R. 37 of 2010 dated 27^th January 2010. The offences alleged are punishable under section 323, 504, 498A, 406, 506(2), 341 read with 376 of Indian Penal Code

¶13

¶14

wp1144-45.doc

¶15

further read with 34 IPC.

¶16

2] The Charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, Mumbai and the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.45 of 2011. During the pendency of this sessions case, parties have met and have held discussions and negotiations for an over all

¶17

mutual settlement.

¶18

3] The F.I.R. was registered at the M.I.D.C. Police Station.

¶19

That was at the instance of Mrs.Sadhana @ Jyoti Shukla – respondent No.2. She has lodged F.I.R. complaining of above offences against her husband and in laws. That complaint is fall out of matrimonial discord and disputes. It has been alleged that the husband of respondent No.2 was already married and not disclosing the same and suppressing it, the second marriage was contracted. It is during the course of that marriage that all the disputes and differences have arisen, leading to the filing of the complaint/ lodging of F.I.R.

¶20

¶21

wp1144-45.doc

¶22

4] After the criminal case No.52 and 245 of 2011 which have

¶23

been registered in pursuance of this F.I.R. were pending before the Sessions Court, both sides have settled all their disputes and differences and withdrawn all allegations against each other. They have arrived at the agreed terms and the same have been reduced into writing in the form of consent terms. They are between the petitioners in W.P.1144 of 2011 and respondent No.2 in both the above petitions.

¶24

5] The petitioners in the array of parties include the petitioner husband in Petition No.1145 of 2011. The terms are essentially between him and second respondent – wife. They have decided to approach the competent family court by filing a petition for a decree of divorce by mutual consent, dissolving their marriage. They have also agreed on the other terms, including monetary payment. The payments have also been made as recorded in the consent terms. The petitioners as also

¶25

respondent No.2 are present in court. Upon being questioned,

¶26

¶27

wp1144-45.doc

¶28

the respondent No.2 Mrs.Sadhana @ Jyoti Shukla states that she has placed her signatures below the terms after fully understanding their implications and consequences in law. She states that she does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the in-laws and her husband because the dispute is settled to her satisfaction. She has appeared before me. On her answers to certain questions posed by me, it is clear that she has signed these terms willingly and without any pressure or force. There are no third parties involved. There is only one daughter from the said wedlock and custody of the daughter is with the respondent No.2 – Mrs.Sadhana @ Jyoti Shukla. Parties have agreed that the custody will not be disturbed. In such circumstances, she states that she desires to put an end to all criminal cases and does not wish to continue with them.

¶29

6] Learned APP invites my attention to the fact that one of the offence alleged is under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, prays that this Court must take into consideration

¶30

¶31

wp1144-45.doc

¶32

the aspect as to whether such crimes are against the society and not only the victim. They should not be compounded and the criminal case alleging them be closed or not, be decided accordingly.

¶33

7] After hearing both Counsel on this point what I have noted is that the facts in this case are peculiar. The allegations pertaining to offences punishable under section 376 of IPC have

¶34

been made only enraged by the fact that there were serious matrimonial disputes and differences. The grievance was that the earlier marriage interfered with the matrimonial life of the petitioner and second respondent. It is on account of that the allegations of forcible sexual intercourse have been made against the husband. However, the second respondent wife states that the allegations have been made essentially on account of matrimonial discord and dispute and not on account of any specific act/s.

¶35

¶36

wp1144-45.doc

¶37

8] In the backdrop of the allegations which have to be read

¶38

as a whole, I cannot deduce therefrom that any offence under section 376 of IPC has been committed. As the couple has a

¶39

child, in the larger interest and for the future of the child so also that of the families, it would be fair, just and proper and to secure ends of justice to quash the criminal case pending as between them. This is imminently a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings. In the light of the mutual settlement and the consent terms being duly signed, the signatures confirmed and the agreement and understanding being reiterated before me, the petitions are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Criminal proceedings including Criminal Case Nos. 52 of 2011 and 245 of 2011 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mumbai are quashed. Petitions disposed of. No costs.

Rajmani S/O Gomtiprasad Shukla and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmani S/O Gomtiprasad Shukla and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Situ Ramnath Shastri Vs M/S. K. Vishal Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Santosh Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Ramesh Brid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samir Jaswant Shah Vs Rajendra Vinayak Mehta

Rajashri Medithi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Murlidhar Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra