Allowed

Deepal Jignesh Gala @ Deepal Dharmendra Gada v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2017APL/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed quashing of FIR under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Applicant registered as first informant via wife's complaint. Divorce petition converted to Section 13(B) Hindu Marriage Act settlement reached with consent terms signed by both parties. Continued proceedings would cause harassment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR bearing C.C. No.171 of 2015 filed in Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, in terms of Consent Terms dated 13th February 2017.

Deepal Jignesh Gala @ Deepal Dharmendra Gada Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Megha p11_apl_260_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.260 OF 2017

¶4

Deepal Jinesh Gala

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶7

Mrs. Manjula Rao for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Arshid Shah i/b. Ms Preeti Gada for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶10

DATED: 7^th MARCH, 2017.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first

¶14

Respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶15

The Applicant is the First Informant, at whose instance the impugned First Information Report alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 498 A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the second Respondent and others. In the

¶16

Megha

¶17

1/3

¶18

Megha p11_apl_260_2017.doc

¶19

Divorce Petition No.A-2572 of 2015 filed by the Second Respondent against the Applicant before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, parties arrived at settlement by filing consent terms dated 13^th February, 2017. A copy of the consent terms is annexed at Exhibit 'B' to the Application. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the second Respondent, on instructions, say that the consent terms have been signed by the Applicant and the second Respondent.

¶20

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Divorce Petition bearing No.A-2572 of 2015 has been converted into a Petition filed under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is fixed for final disposal on 15^th March, 2017. Perusal of the consent terms shows that there is a settlement on all aspects of the matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and the second Respondent. There is an affidavit filed by the Applicant accepting the settlement. Apart from the statements made in the Application consenting for quashing, the second Respondent has also accepted that there is a settlement in terms of the consent terms at Exhibit-'B'

¶21

The matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and the second Respondent was the root cause for the registration of the First

¶22

Megha

¶23

2/3

¶24

Megha p11_apl_260_2017.doc

¶25

Information Report. Now after the settlement is arrived at between the parties in the matrimonial dispute, the continuation of proceedings will cause undue harassment to the parties. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the First Information Report.

¶26

Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶27

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),

¶28

which reads thus:

¶29

“a. The F.I.R. bearing C.C. No.171 of 2015 filed in Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, be quashed in terms of the Consent Terms dated 13^th February, 2017.”

¶30

(ii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶32

Megha

¶33

3/3

Deepal Jignesh Gala @ Deepal Dharmendra Gada v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepal Jignesh Gala @ Deepal Dharmendra Gada v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Hariram Rajput Vs Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Shamim Bani Modak and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gautam Sukhdev Wagh Vs Shyam Namdevrao Kasabe and Anr.

Govt. of India and Ors. Vs M/S. Hughes and Hughes Chem Ltd.

Dilip Dashrath Jadhav and Ors. Vs Solapur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Mohmad Akhtar Haji Ebrahim Pavte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.