Allowed

Bhaveshkumar Jagannath Thakur and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/3691/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed to quash a criminal complaint filed by the wife against her husband and parents for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint based on the settlement and dissolution of the marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the criminal complaint filed by the wife was quashed and set aside.

Bhaveshkumar Jagannath Thakur and Ors. Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 3691-16

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3691 OF 2016

¶5

Bhaveshkumar Thakur & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar i/b V. A. Madane, for the Petitioners. Ms. S. V. Sonawane, APP for Respondent No. 1.

¶8

Mr. Rahul Matkari, for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

¶14

This petition is filed by the Petitioner husband and his parents for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 wife, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506

¶15

and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit

¶16

1 / 2

¶17

WP. 3691-16

¶18

stating therein that she has no objection if the complaint filed by her is quashed and set aside. We have interviewed Respondent No. 2, who is present in the Court. She has stated that both the parties have settled the dispute, and her marriage with Petitioner No. 1 has been dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We are satisfied that quashing of the criminal complaint is in the best interest of the wife, her daughter, the husband and family members of both the parties.

¶19

Both the parties have relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of - (i) B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675] ; and (ii) – Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 Supreme Court cases 303] in which it is held that the High Court has inherent power to quash the complaint if the dispute between the parties is a personal one. The ratio of both the judgments, in our view, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), and is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

Sd/Sd/[Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶21

Vinayak Halemath

¶22

2 / 2

Bhaveshkumar Jagannath Thakur and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaveshkumar Jagannath Thakur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhavesh Keshav Mhatre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asma Begum Mohammed Siddiq Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijaypratap Talukdar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Adeshwar Meditex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Directorate of Health Services and Ors.