The High Court quashed an FIR in a matrimonial dispute after confirming mutual settlement between parties and the annulment of their marriage by divorce decree by mutual consent.
Criminal Writ Petition allowed and made absolute; costs of Rs. 20,000 deposited with Maharashtra Legal Aid Fund.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 12) wp-2692-17.doc
SAS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2692 OF 2017
Kunal Rooplal Ranawat & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.Kunal Tiwari i/b. K.Juris for the Petitioners.
Mrs.Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 present.
CORAM: R.M.SAVANT AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2018
P.C.:-
The above Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. No.589/2016 registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 498(A), 504, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 12) wp-2692-17.doc
account of the matrimonial disputes between the parties. The parties were already before the Civil Court by way of HMA Petition No.34/3 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner No.1 i.e. the husband for divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it seems that the parties have settled the dispute between themselves and applied for divorce by mutual consent and resultantly, the said HMA Petition No.34/3 of 2016 was converted to a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh by his order dated August 30, 2017 passed a decree for divorce by mutual consent and resultantly the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was annulled. The first informant i.e. the Respondent No.2 Ravita Kunal Ranawat has filed an affidavit, in the context of the reliefs sought in the above Writ Petition. Clauses (4) and (5) of the said affidavit are material and are reproduced hereinunder:-
“4) I say that now we i.e. all the Petitioners and myself have arrived at mutual settlement and decided to compound the said F.I.R. bearing No.589/2016.
5) I state that now nothing survives in the prosecution
3 12) wp-2692-17.doc
lodged by me and I don't want to proceed against the Petitioners. Therefore, I am humbly supporting the present petition of the Petitioners.”
4 12) wp-2692-17.doc
box and queried, she states that he has read the affidavit which is filed by her today and tendered by the learned counsel Mr. Tiwari. She states that she has signed the said affidavit of her own free will and volition.
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
2 2014 AIR SCW 2065
5 12) wp-2692-17.doc
the parties for settling their disputes, the Petitioner No.1 to deposit
costs of Rs.20,000/- with the Maharashtra Legal Aid Fund within 6
weeks from date, receipt to be obtained and filed in the Registry.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR in a matrimonial dispute where parties have mutually settled and divorce has been granted by mutual consent.
Whether mutual settlement and annulment of marriage constitute sufficient grounds for quashing proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶26
Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.Explained¶26
Narinder Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 AIR SCW 2065 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kunal Rooplal Ranawat & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
R.M.SAVANT
NITIN W.SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
