High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving marital dispute following amicable settlement and complainant's voluntary consent. Court relied on B. S. Joshi guidelines to burden reduction and ended due to no service pending.
Quashing and setting aside proceedings of criminal case No. 1091/PW/2013 filed against petitioners.
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.
Sr.No.
WP 210.15
SSK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2015
….Petitioners
versus
Mr. Kapil Dave, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. V. S. Singh, advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & A. S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2015.
P.C.:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the proceedings of criminal case No. 1091/PW/2013 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 65th Court at Andheri, Mumbai.
Shubhada S Kadam 1/3
WP 210.15
Sr.No. 2
No.1 has filed petition No.A-312 of 2013 before the Family Court at Mumbai for decree of divorce. Respondent No. also lodged C.R.No.165 of 2011 against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 337, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed which was numbered as criminal case No.1091/PW/2013.
2/3
Shubhada S Kadam
Sr.No. 2
WP 210.15
Shubhada S Kadam 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 337, 406, 504 and 506 IPC should be quashed upon amicable settlement and withdrawal request by the complainant.
Whether quashing proceedings would be in the interest of justice and the suo motu power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC applies here.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tapan Rajkumar Salgia and others
State of Maharashtra
Prachi Tapan Salgia
Ranjit More
A. S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
