Allowed

Gopal Sitaldas Gurnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2016APL/701/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench quashed quantum of criminal proceedings against applicant arising from section 498(A) IPC charges. Court noted mutual consent divorce decree passed and complete settlement of matrimonial dispute by parties, holding continuation would cause undue harassment.

What did the court decide?

C.C. No.614/PW/2011 pending in court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.387/2010 may be quashed, set aside and applicant may be discharged/acquitted.

Gopal Sitaldas Gurnani Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

rsk 1 APL-701-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.701 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Gopal Sitaldas Gurhani ...Applicant/ Orig. Accused

¶5

vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

...

¶7

Mr. Prashant Badole for the applicant. Dr. F. R. Shaikh , APP for respondent No.1. Mr. Prakash Mahadik for respondent No.2.

¶8

…

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 8^th JULY, 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶12

Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the first respondent. The Learned counsel for the second respondent waives service.

¶13

This application is for quashing the first information report registered for the offence punishable under section 498(A) of IPC. The applicant is the husband and the second respondent is the wife. Second respondent is the first informant. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed for the offence punishable under section 498(A), 323 and 506(II) of IPC.

¶14

In Petition No.A-91 of 2011 filed by the applicant against second respondent in the Family Court at Mumbai, consent

¶15

rsk 2 APL-701-16.doc

¶16

terms were filed. A copy of the Consent Terms is annexed as Exh.B to the Application. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel for the second respondent, the consent terms have been acted upon and in fact, a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has been passed by the Family Court thereby dissolving marriage between the applicant and second respondent.

¶17

The applicant and second respondent are personally present in the Court. Second respondent has filed an affidavit recording her consent for quashing the proceeding of the criminal case. The learned counsel appearing for them state that there is a complete settlement of the matrimonial dispute.

¶18

Perusal of the First Information Report shows that the matrimonial dispute resulted in the registration of FIR. Now there is a complete settlement of matrimonial dispute. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings will cause undue harassment of the applicant and the second respondent. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the order.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

“(b) C.C. NO.614/PW/2011 pending in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17^th Court, Borivali, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No.387/2010

¶22

rsk 3 APL-701-16.doc

¶23

registered by Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of Respondent No.2 against the Applicant herein, may be quashed and set aside and the applicant may be discharged/acquitted from the above mentioned case in the interest of justice.”

¶24

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶25

(A.S. OKA, J.)

Gopal Sitaldas Gurnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Sitaldas Gurnani 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

Hari Niwas Chs Ltd. Vs Grace Construction and 11 Ors.

Rajesh Punraj Khobragade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nelson Albart D Cruz and Ors.

Ramzan Jamil Sayyed Vs Vikram Deshmane and Ors.

Kalpesh Ramchandr Dandekar @ Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jaya Talakshi Chheda Vs the State of Maharashtra