Allowed

Subham Vinod Kedia and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2017WP/542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the FIR registered under various sections of IPC in a matrimonial dispute. The quashing order was passed due to a settlement arrived at before the Family Court and undertaken consent between the husband and wife.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report dated C.R.No.127/2016 lodged by Respondent No.2 at Vile Parle Police Station was quashed.

Subham Vinod Kedia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2017)

WP-542.17

sng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.542 OF 2017

¶5

Mr.Subham Vinod Kedia and Others. .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Another. .. Respondents

¶6

Ms. Razia Badruddin Shaikh for the Petitioners. Shri N.B. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1. Shri Rushil Mehta for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATED : 2ND MARCH 2017

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first Respondent. The Advocate for the second Respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶10

The first Petitioner and the second Respondent are the husband and wife. The second and third Petitioners are parents of the first Petitioner and the fourth Petitioner is the sister of the first Petitioner.

¶11

The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶12

2 WP-542.17

¶13

sng

¶14

Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) is for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) lodged at the instance of the second Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

In the Petition No.A-2057 of 2016 filed by the first Petitioner against the second Respondent before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, on 22^nd December 2016, the said parties arrived at a settlement before the Marriage Counsellor of the Family Court. A true copy of the said settlement signed by the first Petitioner and the second Respondent has been annexed to the Petition. In terms of the settlement recorded therein, the first Petitioner has deposited a cheque dated 7^th March 2017 in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs with the Family Court.

¶16

The second Respondent has filed an affidavit dated 30^th January 2017 accepting that there was a compromise arrived at between the first Petitioner and the second Respondent on 22^nd December 2016 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In terms of Clause 14 of the said consent terms, she has agreed for quashing the First Information Report.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent state that the

¶18

3 WP-542.17

¶19

sng

¶20

pending Petition has been converted into a Petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is fixed on 4^th March 2017. The first Petitioner and the second Respondent through their respective learned counsel undertake to the Court that they will not withdraw their respective consent for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶21

In view of the complete settlement of the matrimonial dispute as reflected from the consent terms, continuation of the criminal proceedings based on the matrimonial dispute will cause undue harassment to the first Petitioner and the second Respondent. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶22

Accordingly, we pass the following order.

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

(a) The undertakings of the first Petitioner and the second Respondent recorded above are accepted;

¶25

(b) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A),

which read thus:

WP-542.17

sng

“(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the First Information Report being FIR No.C.R.No.127/2016, lodged by the Respondent No.2 with the Vile Parle Police Station.” (c) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

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

Subham Vinod Kedia and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subham Vinod Kedia 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Ishan Kackar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Mr. Manishkumar Mahavir Singh Vs Mrs. Vanita Manish Sachar

Sachin Harish Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Asgar Choudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naved Iqbal Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Stephen John Smith Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.