Allowed

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2018APPLN/1818/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application seeking quashment of an FIR under Section 498A IPC. After hearing, the court noted that the dispute was settled amicably and the wife proposed withdrawing the proceedings. Relied upon the informant's affidavit supporting withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 74 of 2018 and the criminal proceedings attached thereto.

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. Appln. No. 01818 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Application No. 01818 of 2018

¶4

		`District : Aurangabad`
`01.`	`Abdullah s/o. Ziya Ahmed Shah,`
	`Age 26 years,`
	`Occupation Service,`
	`R/o. Ambadas Nagar, Sillod,`
	`Taluka Sillod,` `District Aurangabad.`
`02.`	`Ziya Ahmed Shah,`
	`Age 50 years,` `Occupation Service,`
	`R/o. Ambadas Nagar,` `Sillod, Taluka Sillod,` `District Aurangabad.`
`03.`	`Ruksana Begum` `w/o. Ziya Ahmed Shah,` `Age 45 years,` `Occupation Housewife,`	`.. Applicants.`
	`R/o. Ambadas Nagar,`
	`Sillod, Taluka Sillod,` `District Aurangabad.`
`04.`	`Sarvat Anjum` `w/o. Hamid Shah,`
	`Age 30 years,`
	`Occupation Service,`
	`R/o. Bhadkal Gate,` `Aurangabad,`
	`Dist. Aurangabad.`
`05.`	`Ayesha D/o. Ziya`
	`Ahmed Shah,`
	`Age 18 years,`
	`Occupation Education,`
	`R/o. Ambadas Nagar,`
	`Sillod, Taluka Sillod,`
	`District Aurangabad.`

¶5

versus

¶6

(Judgment) (2) Cri. Appln. No. 01818 of 2018

¶7

01.The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Sillod City Police Station,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
02.Bushra Kausar .. Respondents.
w/o. Abdulla Shah,
Age 20 years,
Occupation Household,
R/o. Abdul Hamid Chauk,
Pentionpura, College Road,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.

¶8

...........

¶9

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶10

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.01.

¶11

Mr. V.Y. Bhide, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶12

...........

¶13

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 22ND OCTOBER 2018

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Court] :

¶16

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.

¶17

02.By the present application, the applicants
are praying for quashment of first information report
in Crime No. 74 of 2018, dated 14.05.2018, registered
with Sillod City Police Station, Sillod, District
Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Section

¶18

(Judgment) (3) Cri. Appln. No. 01818 of 2018

¶19

498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶20

03.During arguments, learned Advocate for the
applicants - original accused and the learned
Advocate for respondent no.02 - first informant
submitted that the parties have settled the dispute
amicably and the first informant - wife wants to
withdraw the proceedings. Respondent no.02 has filed
affidavit in reply stating that the application of
the present applicants may be allowed.

¶21

04.In view of the reply filed on behalf of
respondent no.02, this Court holds that the relief
prayed in the application deserves to be granted.

¶22

05.Hence, the following order :-

¶23

(a) The application is allowed.

¶24

(b) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B".

¶25

(c) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶26

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

...........

¶28

puranik / CRIAPPLN1818.18

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar S/O. Raghunath Kendre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas S/O. Bhiwaji Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar @ Kailaspati S/O. Ishwar Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asha W/O. Bhanudas Wadmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.