The High Court of Bombay, exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed and set aside the FIR registered as C.R. No. 108 of 2013 and the consequent charge-sheet in a matrimonial dispute.
Quashing of FIR C.R. No. 108 of 2013 and charge-sheet C.C. No. 1871/PW/2013.
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.
Md.Saleem 1/3 WP2423.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRITPETITION NO.2423 OF 2013
Zahir Razzak Shah & Ors.- .petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ms. Gulestan Dubhash i/b A. Karim Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr. Abdul S. Metaz, Advocate for R. No. 2.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATED : 09th January, 2014.
P.C. :
The petitioner and respondent
No. 2 are praying for quashing of the
complaint viz. C. R. No. 108 of 2013, registered on 1/3/2013 at Mahim Police Station, Mumbai.
2 The petitioner and respondent
No. 2 were married in the year 2006 as per the Islamic rites and rituals. The marriage was performed with the consent
Md.Saleem 2/3 WP2423.13
of the parties and, their parents. It is contended that on 23/10/2007, a girl child was born out of the wedlock, who was named as 'Kumara Daniya'. The parties thereafter could not pull on their relationship. It is submitted that they have got separated and thereafter agreed for mutual divorce. A Talaqnama (Exh.-C) is placed on record, which according tot he learned counsel was drawn in presence of three witnesses. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply.
3 The parties are present in court. They are identified by their respective counsels. They desire that the prosecution be quashed.
4 Considering the facts and
circumstances and the plea raised by the parties, we are convinced that the criminal case deserves to be quashed and set aside, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482
Md.Saleem
WP2423.13
of the Cr. P.C.
5 The learned APP submitted
that charge-sheet came to be filed, consequent to the registration of complaint in C.R. No. 108 of 2013.
ORDER
The F.I.R. Registered at C.R. No. 108 of 2013 and the charge-sheet filed
by the police in the 9th ACM Court, Bandra, Mumbai, vide C.C. No. 1871/PW/2013, is quashed and set aside.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(V.L. ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal complaint and charge-sheet arising from dissolution of marriage deserves to be quashed.
Whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is exercisable to quash the FIR.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Zahir Razzak Shah
State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
V. L. ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
