Allowed

Sudhir Vithal Medhekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Nov 2016WP/4033/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition for quashing a complaint under Section 498A IPC. Following an amicable settlement and mutual consent terms where the wife undertook not to object, the Court applied B.S. Joshi and held quashing was in the best interest of the parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the complaint filed under sections 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Sudhir Vithal Medhekar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

WP/4033/2016

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4033 OF 2016

¶6

Shri Sudhir Vithal Medhekar & Others ….. Petitioners.

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra (Through the Police Inspector, Powai Police Station, Mumbai) and Anr. …... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Sachin R. Pawar for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Pavan Patil for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: V. M. KANADE & MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE: 28^th November, 2016

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Mentioned, not on board. Upon Mentioning, taken on board.

¶13

Petitioners have filed this Petition for quashing the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Parties have amicably settled the dispute. Both the parties are present in court. Respondent No.2/wife has no objection if the

¶15

2/2

¶16

WP/4033/2016

¶17

complaint is quashed. Since Respondent No.2/wife has come from Amravati and she is not in a position to stay back, today we are inclined to take up this mater for final disposal at this stage itself.

¶18

Parties have filed Consent Terms in the Family Court and in the Consent Terms Respondent No.2/wife has given an undertaking that she will not take any objection if the complaint under section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code is quashed.

¶19

In our view, ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana¹ is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Quashing of the complaint, in our view, is in the best interest of Respondent No.2/wife as also in the interest of parents of both the parties and Petitioner No.1/husband.

¶20

Taking into consideration all these facts, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶21

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

(MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶23

1 (2003) 4 SCC 675

Sudhir Vithal Medhekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Vithal Medhekar 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

Nilesh Nenshi Gala and Anr. Vs Shakuntala Joshi and Anr.

Majid Abdul Gaffar Mogal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Harkishandas Ganwani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Shankar Walimbe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sandesh Subash Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.