Allowed

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016WP/640/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal complaint u/s 498A IPC and related charges. Petitioner husband sought quashing after filing mutual consent for divorce. Court interviewed wife, confirmed no coercion, and relied on B.S. Joshi to grant quash under inherent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint MECR No. 8 of 2014, chargesheet, and Sessions Case No. 658/PW/2015 quashed.

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4wp640-16.odt

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2016

¶5

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat & Anr. … Petitioners.

¶6

V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents.

¶7

¶8

Mr. Mihir D. Gheewala a/w. Santosh Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.Prashant Chauhan & Mr.M.R.Raut,Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 16^th NOVEMBER, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

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

¶15

2 This petition is filed by the Petitionerhusband for quashing the criminal complaint filed against him by Respondent No.2 wife for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 414, 403, 313 r/w. 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both husband and wife filed separate petitions for divorce which are pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. During the pendency of

1/3

Borey

spb/ 4wp640-16.odt

these proceedings, they filed an application for converting both the petitions for divorce by mutual consent. Both the parties have also filed a consent terms in the said divorce proceedings. The wife has given consent for quashing the criminal complaint filed against the husband.

¶20

3 We have interviewed the respondentwife. She has stated that no coercion has been exercised on her for giving her consent for quashing of the criminal complaint against the husband. Parties have already filed a consent terms in the Family Court in which one of the condition for conversion of the divorce petition is that the wife withdraws the complaint under section 498 and other provisions of the IPC.

¶21

4 After having interviewed the respondentwife, we are satisfied that the quashing of the criminal complaint is in the best interest of the wife. Both the parties are young. Respondent wife submits that she would like to start a new chapter on the clean slate. Therefore, she is not interested in further pursuing the criminal complaint filed by her against the husband. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & Ors . vs. State of Haryana & Anr. , reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, has held that in a matrimonial dispute when ever a complaint under section 498A is filed against husband and both the parties agree to settle the dispute by dissolving the marriage mutually and apply for quashing the complaint by

2/3

Borey

spb/

4wp640-16.odt

consent, the High Court shall exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing such a complaint.

¶27

5 The Apex Court in the said case, cited supra, has observed that the limitation imposed on a Magistrate under section 320 of the Cr. P.C. cannot be read into the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Cr. P.C.. The inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 are not restricted or limited by the restrictions imposed by the legislature on a Magistrate, while he exercises his jurisdiction under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.. A complaint, therefore, even if not compoundable under section 320, can be quashed by the High Court under section 482 of the Cr. P. C.. We have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the complaint by consent of both the parties.

¶28

6 Hence, the criminal compliant vide MECR No. 8 of 2014 registered with the Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the chargesheet which is filed out of the said complaint also stands quashed. The case pending before the Sessions Court vide Sessions Case No. 658/PW/2015 also stands quashed.

¶29

7 The Petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

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

¶31

3/3

¶32

Borey

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. 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

Suryakant Lakhman Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Milind Vasudevrao Deshkukh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Bharti Airtel Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinod Deendayal Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahatma Gandhi Missions and Ors. Vs Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur and Anr.