Allowed

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Aug 2016APL/2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Applications Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC instituted against the petitioner due to the settlement of the matrimonial dispute. The respondents waived service, and the second respondent, appearing in person, affirmed that the dispute is resolved and she offered no objection to quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the criminal case pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside and quashed.

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1.APL.2.16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION U/S. 482 NO. 2 OF 2016

¶4

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri	… Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	… Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sajjad Husainali Patel for the Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State Mr. for the State. Mrs. Hanifa Faruk Mansuri – Respondent No. 2, present in person.

¶6

CORAM : A. S. OKA & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30 AUGUST, 2016.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Rule

¶9

The learned APP waives service for the 1^st Respondent.

¶10

2^nd Respondent appearing in person, waives service. The learned

¶11

counsel appearing for the Applicant personally identifies the 2^nd Respondent. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The prayer in this application under Section 482 of Code

¶13

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) is for quashing the First Information Report registered at the instance of the 2^nd Respondent

¶14

alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of

¶15

the India Penal Code. Before the learned Magistrate, an application

¶16

Habeeb 1/3

¶17

1.APL.2.16.odt

¶18

was made on 2^nd February 2015 by the applicant and the 2^nd Respondent recording that they have resolved their matrimonial dispute and they are residing together. The said application was rejected on the ground that the offence was not compoundable.

¶19

The 2^nd Respondent has tendered an affidavit affirmed today. The 2^nd Respondent is identified by the Advocate for the Applicant. In the said affidavit, she has stated that the matrimonial dispute with the applicant has been resolved and both of them are staying together with their children. Therefore, she has recorded her no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶20

In view of the settlement of the matrimonial dispute, now continuation of criminal proceeding will cause undue hardship to both the parties.

¶21

Hence we pass following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a)

¶24

Which reads thus :

¶25

(a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Order under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure quashing /

2/3

Habeeb

1.APL.2.16.odt

setting aside the Criminal Case No. 121/PW/2004 pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 2^nd Mazgaon Court at Sewree, Mumbai against the Applicant.

¶30

7 . All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of

¶31

this order.

¶32

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶33

Habeeb 3/3

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Bharti Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Kalicharan Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Dharma Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Indira Mavji Shethia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Atmaram Gharat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.