Allowed

Alok Gopal Nair and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2016WP/710/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal regarding quashing of FIR for offences under sections 498-A and 34 IPC. Court allowed quashing order based on settlement agreement and pending mutual consent divorce settlement, citing Gandhi vs State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

FIR bearing CR No.408/2014 registered with Bandra Police Station for offences under sections 498-A and 34 IPC was quashed and set aside.

Alok Gopal Nair and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

crwp710

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2016

¶5

Alok Nair & Ors.
vs.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
 and others...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Ratnesh M. Dube for the Petitioners
Ms S.V.Sonawane, APP for the respondent No.1
Ms Kinnari Hingol for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 R.D.DHANUKA, JJ.
 DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first
respondent. The learned counsel for the second
respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for
final disposal.

¶13

2The prayer is for quashing the FIR on the basis
of the complaint filed at the instance of the second
respondent for the offence punishable under sections
498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The first petitioner and the second respondent are
the husband and wife. The prayer for quashing is
made on the basis of the settlement between the
parties. An affidavit has been filed by the second

¶14

2 crwp710

¶15

respondent-wife to which a copy of compromise deed
dated 28th July 2016 executed by and between the
first petitioner and the second respondent has been
annexed.

¶16

3A petition for divorce by mutual consent has
been filed on 4th August 2016 by the first petitioner
and the second respondent in the Family Court, South
East, Saket, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the
second respondent on instructions of the second
respondent who is personally present states that
all terms and conditions incorporated in the
compromise deed have been complied with. In the
affidavit, the second respondent has recorded her no
objection for quashing the proceedings. The first
petitioner has handed over a cheque in the sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the Advocate for the second
respondent who in turn has handed over the cheque to
the second respondent who is personally present in
the Court.

¶17

4The learned counsel for the petitioners on
instructions of the first petitioner who is
personally present in the Court and the learned
counsel for the second respondent on instructions of
the second respondent who is personally present in
the Court state that the said parties will not
withdraw their consent recorded for passing a decree
of divorce by mutual consent. We accept the said
statements as undertakings of the first petitioner
and the second respondent. As the matrimonial
dispute has been settled, continuation of criminal

¶18

3 crwp710

¶19

proceedings for the offence under section 498-A of
the Indian penal Code will cause undue harassment
to the first petitioner and the second respondent.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of
Punjab and another1, this is a fit case to exercise
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code.

¶20

5Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing
the following order:

¶21

(I)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a) which reads thus:

¶22

“(a) This Hon'ble Court by exercising powers
under section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Article
226 of the Constitution of India be pleased
to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR
No.408/2014 registered with Bandra Police
Station for offence under sections 498-A read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 on 13.8.2014 qua the petitioners.”

¶23

(II) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶24

1 (2012) 10 SCC page 303

Alok Gopal Nair and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Gopal Nair 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

Santosh Dhanadas Kurup Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Jagganath Bendre Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Bharat Nanjibhai Thakkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Jagdish Nandkumar Sonal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imtiyaz Iliyaas Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gaurav Narendra Vargante and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.