Quashed

Alok Shashikant Naik and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2016APL/443/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an FIR under sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered during matrimonial disputes. The Court held that with a complete settlement and a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the requisite circumstances for quashing existed under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The rule was made absolute to quash and set aside proceedings of Criminal Case No.1227/PW/2012 instituted based on FIR No.179/2011.

Alok Shashikant Naik and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

apl443

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2016

¶5

Alok S. Naik & Ors. ...Applicants
vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.J.M.Puranik for the applicants
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the respondent No.1
Mr.Gurunath Sawant for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 P.D.NAIK, JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 29, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

.Not on board. Taken on board.

¶12

1Rule. The learned APP waives service for the
first respondent, the learned counsel for the second
respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for
final disposal.

¶13

2The first applicant is the husband and the
second respondent is the wife. At the instance of
the second respondent, FIR was lodged for commission
of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with
Mahim Police Station. Subsequently, in a petition
for divorce filed by the first applicant in the
Family Court, a settlement was arrived at between
her and the first applicant and the parties agreed
to take divorce by mutual consent under section
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. On the basis

¶14

2 apl443

¶15

of the said consent terms, a decree of divorce has
been passed by the Family Court on 30th April 2015.

¶16

3The second respondent has filed an affidavit
recording her no objection for allowing this
application in view of the complete settlement
between her and the first applicant. Perusal of the
consent terms shows that all the disputes between
them have been settled.

¶17

5It is obvious that the matrimonial dispute
between the the first applicant and the second
respondent has led to the registration of FIR. Now
there is a complete settlement between the parties.
Therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and
another1, a case is made out for allowing this
application by quashing the FIR.

¶18

6Hence, we pass the following order:

¶19

(i)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:

¶20

“(a)Be pleased to pass an appropriate
order/direction under section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code and thereby be pleased to quash
and set aside the proceedings of Criminal Case
No.1227/PW/2012 pending in the Court of the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 9th Court, at
Bandra, Mumbai instituted on the basis of the

¶21

1 (2012) 10 SCC page 303

¶22

3 apl443

¶23

impugned F.I.R No.179/2011 registered at the
Mahim Police Station, Mahim, Mumbai for the
alleged offences punishable under sections 498-
A, 4016 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.”

¶24

(ii) If any amount depositied by the first applicant is lying deposited with the Family Court at Mumbai, on production of an authenticated copy of this Judgment and Order, the Family Court shall permit the second respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount;

¶25

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

¶26

(P.D.NAIK,J.)

Alok Shashikant Naik and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Shashikant Naik 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

Dr. Sarita Kishor Parikh and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police Vartak Nagar Police Station and 2 Ors. and Nancy Dsouza (Applicant)

Swarup Group of Industries and Anr. Vs National Agricultural Co-Op. Marketing Federation of India Ltd.

Brijesh Champalal Mundada Vs Jhunkabai Trambak Surve and Ors.

Naval Kishore Prasad and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Hemali Ravindra Konikara and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bijendra Singh Kailash Singh Vs M/S. Tainwala Builders and Developers.