Allowed

Nandkishor Shivram Parab v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2016WP/2637/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed under the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his wife in a domestic dispute. After interviewing the parties, who agreed to reconcile and stay together for their children's sake, the Court applied precedents to allow the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal complaint booked against the petitioner.

Nandkishor Shivram Parab Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

17-WP-2637-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2637 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Nandkishor Shivram Parab ...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra (through Rabodi Police Station) and another

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Ms. Trupti Vijay Chavan for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwin Ashok Borhade for Respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶13

This application is filed for quashing of the criminal complaint by consent. The criminal complaint was filed under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. We have interviewed respondent no.2 as well as the applicant. They have decided to stay together and let bygones be bygones for the sake of their two daughters who are about 16 and 24 years old. Both the applicant and respondent no.2 are working and are financially well placed. We appreciate the concern expressed by both the applicant and respondent no.2 and we appreciate their decision to forget the past and start a new life on a

1/2

Vikrant Elgire

17-WP-2637-2016

clean slate. Since this is a personal dispute, which they wish to close, the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that quashing of the criminal complaint is not only in the best interest of respondent no.2 and the petitioner, but also their two daughters. The petitioner and respondent no.2 will be completing 25 years of their married life. Except for a gray patch for about 3 years, they have lived a nice happy married life. We, therefore, allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶18

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

(Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.)

¶20

2/2

¶21

Vikrant Elgire

Nandkishor Shivram Parab v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishor Shivram Parab 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

Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 19 Ors.

Sharad Devram Shelar Vs Nasim Vasim Hyder and Anr.

Sou. Alka Anil Desai Vs South Ratnagiri District Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Uday Ramesh Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Ramesh Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Anil Premchandani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.