Allowed

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi v. Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2016WP/4766/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed a criminal complaint and the subsequent charge-sheet arising under sections 354 and 354A IPC due to an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the ratio in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; criminal complaint, charge-sheet, and the pending trial case quashed.

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi Vs Pooja Sagar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

22wp4766-15.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 4766 OF 2015

¶5

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi & Anr. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. M. H. Jahagirdar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 21^st DECEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

¶13

1 This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint filed against him by Respondent No.1complainant for the offence punishable under section 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2 The parties have amicably settled the dispute. Respondent No.1-complainant has filed additional affidavit-in - reply, stating therein that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. She is present in the court today and has

1/2

Borey

22wp4766-15.odt

spb/

reiterated whatsoever stated in the said affidavit in reply and gave her consent for quashing the criminal complaint.

¶20

3 Taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.1-complainant.

¶21

4 The Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The other reliefs claimed by the Petitioner in the petition are not pressed by him and therefore, no order is passed in respect of the other reliefs. However, we are informed that after the petition was filed, the charge-sheet bearing no. 35 of 2016 has been filed by the police. The said charge-sheet is also quashed and consequently, the case which is pending in the trial court vide Regular Criminal Case No. 144 of 2016 is also quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

2/2

¶24

Borey

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi v. Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi v. Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi 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

Vivek Mahadev Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrinivasan Venkatramani Iyer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Sahdev Suryawanshi Vs Pooja Sagar Suryawanshi and Anr.

Mahatma Laxmanji Arya Education Public Charitable Trust, Panchgani Vs Bombay Environment Action Group and Anr.

Niraj Kajaria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.