Allowed

Ravi Kiran Ganesh Katukam and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2014WP/1576/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal writ petition was filed to quash a complaint under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The respondent-wife stated in court that she had received alimony and property transfer and had no objection to quashing. The court applied B.S. Joshi and quashed the complaint in the best interest of the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Ravi Kiran Ganesh Katukam and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2014)

(Wp 1576 of 2014 )

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1576 OF 2014

¶6

Ravi Kiran Ganesh Katukam and Anr. ...Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. C.N. Kumar for Petitioners

¶11

Mr. N. Sriniwas i/b. Mr. Sameer P. Nangre for Respondent No.2 Mrs. M.H. Mhatre -APP for the State ***********

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

This petition is filed by the Petitioners for quashing a criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 against Petitioners for the offence punishable under section 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 34^th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. We have interviewed her. She has stated that she has received the permanent alimony of Rs.11,00,000/- and one plot worth of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been transferred in her name. She has also stated that she has no objection if the complaint filed by her is quashed.

¶16

We have perused the complaint and the allegations made

¶17

1/2

¶18

(Wp 1576 of 2014 )

¶19

therein are not of very serious nature. Even otherwise, the averments may not amount to an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Since Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in which she has reiterated whatever she has stated in the Court. Taking into consideration these facts, we are of the view that the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Respondent No.2 is 20 years of age. There are no issues out of the said marriage and there is no possibility of reconciliation. Hence, we are of the view that quashing of the complaint is in the best interest of Respondent No.2. Parties have also filed petition for divorce by mutual consent in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and it is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

[P.D. KODE,J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶22

Vaishali Tikam

¶23

2/2

Ravi Kiran Ganesh Katukam and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kiran Ganesh Katukam and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Raghunath Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Baburao Sopan Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yusuf Izaz Sayyed and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravinkumar Dilip Bhosale Anr. Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shahabuddin I. Rogangar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vilas Hari Borle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.