Allowed

Vinay Kumar Sarojkumar Jaiswar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2017WP/645/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an FIR under sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR as a complete settlement between the husband and wife through mutual consent divorce terms was reached, rendering criminal proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered as C.R.No.185 of 2015 under sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC was quashed and set aside.

Vinay Kumar Sarojkumar Jaiswar and Ors. Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

crwp645

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.645 OF 2017

¶5

Vinay Kumar Sarojkumar Jaiswar
& Others...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Others...Respondents

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Raviraj S. Gomare i/b Mr.Jitendra Kamble for the
Petitioners
Ms R.M.Gadhvi, Addl.P.P for the respondent No.1
Ms Sheena Chetan Patil for respondent No.2

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
 DATE : MARCH 16, 2017

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

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

¶11

2The prayer in this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short
`CrPC') is for quashing the first information report
at the instance of the second respondent under
section 498-A, 406 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner and the
second respondent are husband and wife. In pending
petition in the Family Court filed by the husband
against the wife, consent terms were filed on 19th
May 2016. By the consent terms, the parties agreed

¶12

2 crwp645

¶13

to take divorce by mutual consent. Agreed amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the
second respondent has been already deposited by the
first petitioner with the Family Court.

¶14

3The second respondent has tendered an affidavit
recording confirming the settlement between the
parties in terms of the consent terms filed before
the Family Court. The learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the second
respondent on instructions of the first petitioner
and the second respondent state that both of them
will not withdraw their consent for passing a decree
under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶15

4Now, there appears to be a complete settlement
between the first petitioner and the second
respondent of their matrimonial dispute. Hence,
continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial dispute will serve no purpose.
Accordingly, this is a fit case to exercise power
under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR.

¶16

5 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶17

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

¶18

(b) By an appropriate writ, order, direction
issued by this Hon'ble Court initially the
Respondent No.1 registered C.R.No.00/2015 on
9.3.2015 for offence allegedly under

¶19

3 crwp645

¶20

Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC and same was
transferred to R.A.K. Marg Police Station
but the Respondent No.2 made Application to
the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-4 and
accordingly C.R was transferred to the
Respondent No.1 and C.R.NO.185 of 2015
dated16.4.2015wasregisteredfor
investigation and presently pending for
investigation, may be quashed and set
aside.“

¶21

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

Vinay Kumar Sarojkumar Jaiswar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Sarojkumar Jaiswar 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

Ram Avadh Pal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay Udayraj Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Atul Ramdas Dabare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Wajid Lala Mohammed Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Kanta Tejas Maun Vs Dr. Tejas Knubhai Maun