Allowed

Kailash Rameshlal Malani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2016APL/238/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the applicant's application to quash an FIR registered under sections 498-A IPC, the court noted that a settlement had been reached and a divorce petition filed. Relying on Gian Singh, the court held that continuance of proceedings would be prejudicial and allowed the quashing of the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing C.R.No.I-572 of 2015 dated 7.11.2015 registered with Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, Thane is quashed so far as the Applicants are concerned.

Kailash Rameshlal Malani and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

apl238

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2016

¶6

Kailash Rameshlal Malani & Ors.
vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Applicants

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Ganesh Gole a/w Ms Meghna Gawalani for the
Applicant

¶11

Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1

¶12

CORAM :A.S.OKA AND
 A.A.SAYED,JJ.
DATE : JUNE 8, 2016

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1Notice was issued to the second respondent by

¶15

order dated 2nd March 2016. The second respondent
appears in person. The second respondent is the first
informant at whose instance the impugned FIR alleging
commission of offence under sections 498-A, 406, 323
and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The
learned APP on instructions of Ms Vandana Vilas Lende,
Woman Head Constable who is personally present in the
Court states that the person appearing before this
Court is the second respondent viz. Mrs.Gauri Kailash
Malani. The Officer who instructs the learned APP
is a Woman Head Constable attached to Central Police
Station, Ulhasnagar. The offence was registered with
the said police station.

¶16

apl238

¶17

¶18

2The second respondent tenders an affidavit today.
In fact, Investigating Officer has identified the
second respondent on the said affidavit. The
concerned Officer of the Court who affirmed the
affidavit has also seen the identification documents
of the second respondent. In the said affidavit, the
second respondent has stated that subsequently, there
has been a settlement between her and the first
applicant who is her husband. Other applicants are the
members of the family of the first applicant. In fact,
in the affidavit, the second respondent has stated
that on 11th April 2016 she along with the first
applicant has filed a joint petition under section 13
(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolution of
the marriage. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit she has
stated that the disputes have been amicably sorted out
and settled. Therefore, in paragraph 6, she has
recorded no objection to quash the FIR.

¶19

3On plain reading of the FIR it is apparent that
the matrimonial dispute between the parties led to the
registration of the offence. Now the matrimonial
dispute is settled. In the light of the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State
of Punjab and another1, this is a fit case to quash
the FIR. After settlement of the matrimonial dispute,
continuation of the criminal proceedings will cause
prejudice to both the parties.

¶20

1(2012) 10 SCC page 303

¶21

apl238

¶22

¶23

4Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶24

(I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶25

“(b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash
the FIR bearing C.R.No.I-572 of 2015 dated
7.11.2015 registered with Central Police
Station, Ulhasnagar, Thane so far as the
Applicants are concerned, “

¶26

(II) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy
of this order.

¶27

 (A.A.SAYED,J)

¶28

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Kailash Rameshlal Malani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Rameshlal Malani 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

Vikram Davendra Ahuja and Anr. Vs Tania Vijaysingh Deol and 6 Ors.

Clifford John Menezes and 4 Ors. Vs Romell Properties Private Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sanyam Realtors Private Limited Vs Kantilal Khimji Haria and 7 Ors.

Stany Goveas Vs Nancy Stany Goveas

Raosaheb Bhaurao Zalte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rekesh Shankar Shetty and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.