Allowed

Dilip Ashok Gohil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2016APL/1426/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal application to quash a complaint filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 and 34 IPC. The Court relied on mutual consent terms and the wife's voluntary consent to quash the complaint to conclude that quashing is in her best interest, citing B. S. Joshi.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application allowed and complaint under Section 498-A and related sections quashed in terms of prayer clause (b).

Dilip Ashok Gohil and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

APL. 1426-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1426 OF 2016

¶5

Dilip Ashok Gohil & Ors. … Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Satyam Gaud, for the Applicants. Ms. Gayatri Shahane, for Respondent Nos. 2.

¶8

Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No. 1 - State.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2,

¶13

and the learned APP appearing for Respondent No. 1 – State. Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 406 read with 34 IPC, which is registered vide CR No. 77/2014 dated 23.1.2014, with Wadala T.T. Police Station. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply in which she has stated that she has no

¶14

1 / 2

¶15

APL. 1426-16

¶16

objection if the complaint is filed since the consent terms have been filed by the husband and the wife in the Family Court wherein they have applied for divorce by mutual consent. We have perused the consent terms. We have interviewed Respondent No. 2 and we are satisfied that quashing of criminal complaint is in the best interest of Respondent No. 2. One of the conditions for grant of divorce by mutual consent is that Respondent No. 2 should give her no objection for quashing the complaint. We have questioned her as to why she wants to give no objection for quashing the complaint, she stated that she is 27 years old and she wishes to start her life afresh. We are satisfied with the reasons given by her. We are therefore of the view that the ratio of judgment in the case of – B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Criminal application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

Sd/Sd/[Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶18

Vinayak Halemath

¶19

2 / 2

Dilip Ashok Gohil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Ashok Gohil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Akkatai Ravichandra Rathod @ Akkatai Buddhappa Pawar Vs Bharatabai Devidas Pawar and Ors.

Smt. Siddavva Ashok Hiradar Vs President and Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Anr.

Shri. Amar Ashok Karale Vs Grampanchayat Nandni and Ors.