Allowed

Nikhil Chandra Prakash Motwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2016APL/1429/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Side quashed a criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 406, and 34 IPC. The court found the parties had settled amicably, the wife consented to quashing, sought to start afresh, and filed for mutual consent divorce. The Apex Court's ratio in B.S. Joshi was applied.

What did the court decide?

The complaint filed by Respondent No.2 is quashed under Section 482 CrPC and the Criminal Application is allowed.

Nikhil Chandra Prakash Motwani and Ors. Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

906apl1429-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1429 OF 2016

¶5

Nikhil Chandra Prakash Motwani & Ors. … Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents.

¶6

¶7

Mr. Niranjan S. Mundargi, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State-Respondent No.1. Mr.S. M. Dhumal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,JJ.

¶10

DATE : 07^th DECEMBER, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2-Complainant.

¶13

2 A criminal complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 - wife for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 354-A, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/3

Borey

spb/

906apl1429-16.odt

3 The parties have now amicably settled the dispute out of court. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply, wherein she has stated that she has received Rs. 10 lakhs towards permanent alimony and it is deposited in the Family Court. The parties have also filed an application for divorce by mutual consent wherein the consent terms have also been filed. On all criminal complaints are quashed or withdrawn, Respondent No.2 wife will be entitled to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

¶19

4 We have interviewed the Respondent No.2. She is 25 years old. She has stated that she has no objection if the complaint filed by her is quashed. She has further stated that she would like to start her life afresh and, therefore, she has filed this reply affidavit and has given consent for quashing the complaint.

¶20

5 We are satisfied that quashing of the complaint will be in the best interest of Respondent No.2. Secondly, the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and they have also filed the petition, seeking divorce by mutual consent. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. , reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386, will apply to the facts of the present case.

2/3

Borey

spb/

906apl1429-16.odt

6 The complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 is, therefore, quashed. This Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶26

7 There is one other case filed by the Respondent No.2 under the Domestic Violence Act and if that is withdrawn by her, the Family Court shall permit the Respondent No.2 to withdraw the said amount which is already deposited by the Applicant in the Family Court.

¶27

8 The criminal application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

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

¶29

3/3

¶30

Borey

Nikhil Chandra Prakash Motwani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Chandra Prakash Motwani 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

Edwin Britto Vs Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shankar Sayabanna Kunchikorve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Bombay Environmental Action Group and 1 Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors. and M/S Ishwar Developers and Contractors (Applicant/Inte

Ramesh Dahyalal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Rajendra Sundar Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mohammad Zafar Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.