Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint under multiple IPC sections. The High Court noted the complainant's submission to quash. Relying on B.S. Joshi, the Court allowed the petition and disposed of the matter.
Petition allowed and criminal complaint quashed based on prayer clause (b).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2
WP/4383/2016
BDPPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4383 OF 2016
Mr. Vazid Mehaboob Shaikh and Others
…..Petitioners.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …... Respondents.
Mr. Prashant Nakati for the Petitioners.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/b Mr. Vinayak Phadake for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
DATE: 22nd December, 2016
P.C.:-
1] This Petition is filed by the Petitioners for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 354, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2] Respondent No.2 is present in Court. She has informed us that she has no objection if the complaint filed by her against her husband
2/2
WP/4383/2016
and in-laws is quashed. She has also filed an affidavit-in-reply and in the said reply she has reiterated whatever she has informed us. In our view, ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana1 squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
3] Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and disposed of.
(Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
1 (2003) 4 SCC 675
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 138 CrPC is permissible given the complainant's request.
Whether the principles laid down in B.S. Joshi apply to the present facts of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi vs. State of HaryanaApplied¶22
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Vazid Mehaboob Shaikh and Others
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
V. M. Kanade
Nutan D. Sardessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
