Allowed

Sayyed Maqsood S/O Syed Rauf and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Bombay HC30 Nov 2016APPLN/1891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Based on a settlement deed and a voluntary agreement between the applicant and respondents to end marital ties and resolve disputes, the court held that further proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No.1437 of 2015 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC were quashed and set aside.

Sayyed Maqsood S/O Syed Rauf and Other Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cra1891.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1891 OF 2016

¶6

`1) Sayyed Maqsood s/o Syed Rauf,` `Age-29 years, Occu:Business,` `R/o-Shahagad, Tq-Ambad,` `Dist-Jalna,`
`2) Sayyed Maruf Sayyed Rauf,` `Age-32 years, Occu:Business,` `R/o-As above,`
`3) Laik Ahamad Gulam Ahamad Jafari,` `Age-44 years, Occu:Service,` `R/o-Shaha Bazar, Aurangabad,`
`4) Mashuda Begum w/o Laik Ahmad Jafari,` `Age-39 years, Occu:Business,` `R/o-As above.` `...APPLICANTS` `VERSUS`
`1) The State of Maharashtra,`
`2) Asgar Khan s/o Abdul Rahman Khan,` `Age-Major, Occu:Business,` `R/o-New S.T. Colony, Katkat Gate,` `Aurangabad,`
`3) Nagma Khan s/o Asgar Khan,` `Age-22 years, Occu:Household,` `R/o-New S.T. Colony, Katkat Gate,` `Aurangabad.` `...RESPONDENTS`

¶7

cra1891.16

¶8

¶9

...

¶10

 Mr.K.S. Kahalekar Advocate h/f. Mr. N.S.
 Ghanekar Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan Additional Public Prosecutor,
 for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.M.A. Khan Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2016

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

2.The Applicants and Respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶17

have filed the settlement deed on record duly
signed by the Applicants and Respondent Nos.2
and 3. The same is taken on record and marked "x"

¶18

for identification purpose. The parties are
identified by the respective Advocates appearing

¶19

for them. Terms of the settlement deed are
verified before the learned Registrar (Judicial)

¶20

cra1891.16

¶21

¶22

of this Court.

¶23

2.Applicants and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶24

are present in the Court. We have made specific
query to the Applicants and also to Respondent
Nos.2 and 3, whether they have voluntarily agreed
for the terms of amicable settlement or the said
terms of settlement are result of coercion or
pressure. In reply to said query, Respondent Nos.2
and 3 specifically stated that it is their
voluntary act to enter into settlement with the
Applicants. Applicant No.1 also stated that the

¶25

parties will act in accordance with the terms of
the settlement deed.

¶26

3.Upon careful perusal of terms of the

¶27

settlement, it appears that after registering the

¶28

crime, charge-sheet came to be filed before the
Sessions Court, Aurangabad and case is numbered as
R.C.C. No.1437 of 2015. It further appears that
Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.3 amicably

¶29

cra1891.16

¶30

¶31

settled the dispute on 21st May 2015 and they had
put an end to their marital tie and had settled
all their disputes. It is also stated that
Respondent No.3 does not wish to prosecute the
complaint filed by her for offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
other offences.

¶32

4.In view of the settlement arrived between

¶33

the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served
by keeping the further proceedings of R.C.C.
No.1437 of 2015 pending. Continuation of further
proceedings of R.C.C. No.1437 of 2015 (Asgar Khan
s/o Abdul Rahman Khan vs. Syed Maqsood Syed Abdul
Rauf and others) will be abuse of process of law
and wastage of valuable time. Therefore, keeping
in view the exposition of law by the Supreme Court
in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another, 2012 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5333, we are of the
considered view that the Application deserves to
be allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶34

cra1891.16

¶35

¶36

5.The Criminal Application is allowed. The
proceedings in R.C.C. No.1437 of 2015 pending
before learned J.M.F.C. at Aurangabad under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

¶37

6.Rule is made absolute in above terms. The
Criminal Applicationstands disposedof,

¶38

accordingly.

¶39

[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶40

asb/NOV16

Sayyed Maqsood S/O Syed Rauf and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Maqsood S/O Syed Rauf and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

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

Suresh S/O. Daiwan Hange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Malhar S/O Dattatraya Inamdar and Anoter Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Meenu W/O Onkarnath Singh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shankarrao Ambrushi Borkar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Umakant Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sheetal D/O Tambi Dharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others