Allowed

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016APL/1051/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed a criminal application to quash a complaint involving non-bailable offences (Sections 376, 385 IPC) where the parties had amicably settled the dispute by marrying. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held quashing was in the best interest as the complainant had no objection.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed to quash the complaint; matter disposed of.

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

1/2

apl 1051 OF 2016

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1051 OF 2016

¶7

Shri Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan @ Raju and Anr. ….Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ….Respondents

¶8

¶9

Ms. Pranothi B. Pawar for the Applicants Dr. F.R. Shaikh for the State – Respondent No.1 Ms. Sangeeta Mishra for Respondent No.2

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶12

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2016

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

It appears that the Complainant has filed the complaint for the offence punishable under sections 376, 385 of the Indian Penal Code against Applicant No.1 for refusing to marry with her despite giving a promise of marriage to her and on that pretext, having sexual relations with her and also against Applicant No.2 as he was blackmailing Respondent No.2.

¶16

The parties have now amicably settled the dispute. The police have submitted a report dated 1.12.2016. It is stated in the report that the

¶17

2/2 apl 1051 OF 2016

¶18

Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No.2 have now got married and marriage is registered. Applicant No.1 has also annexed the copy of the Nikahnama. Both the parties are present in the Court.

¶19

We have interviewed Respondent No.2- Original Complainant. She has stated that both are living as husband and wife and she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Since the police report also indicates that Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 are staying together as husband and wife, we are of the view that quashing of the complaint is in the best interest of all the parties. The ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 9(1998) 5 SCC 749] and in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (ii) and is disposed of.

¶20

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶21

Vaishali Tikam

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dejul Manilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jasdeep Singh Khurana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harminder Balbir Singh Saini and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.