Allowed

Madhu Rajmal Soni and Ors. v. Sheetal Vinay Soni and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2019APL/314/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. With the filing party's affidavit declaring no objection and confirming an amicable settlement, the Court quashed the FIR citing B.S. Joshi and interests of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR and proceedings in RCC/1474/2016 were quashed and set aside; application held absolute.

Madhu Rajmal Soni and Ors. Vs Sheetal Vinay Soni and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

902-apl-314-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2019

¶4

Smt.Madhu Rajmal Soni & Ors. ..Applicants V/s. Sheetal Vinay Soni & Anr. ..Respondents

¶5

Ms.Ghazala Z. Khan for the Applicants.

¶6

Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

Mr.P.S. Dubey for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 05^th APRIL 2019

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the Proceedings of the Criminal Case bearing No. RCC/1474/2016 pending on the file of the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane. The said case arises our of the registration of FIR bearing C.R. No.I-240 of 2015 at the instance of respondent No.1 with Navghar Police Station, Thane for the office punishable under

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶14

902-apl-314-2019

¶15

Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The applicant No.2 and respondent No.1 are husband and wife. Applicant Nos.1 and 3 are relatives of the applicant No.2. Matrimonial discord between the parties gave rise to filing of several Criminal as well as Civil cases. The subject matter of the present application is one of them.

¶17

Pursuant to the understanding arrived between the parties, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding of the subject Criminal Case by consent. Respondent No.1 has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 03.04.2019. In Paragraph No.10 she has given no objection to quash the proceedings of the subject Criminal Case. Respondent No.1 personally present in the Court. On specific query, he submitted that in view of the settlement of the parties the subject proceeding is quashed and set aside.

¶18

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Perusal of the complaint, makes it clear that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these

¶19

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶20

902-apl-314-2019

¶21

circumstances and especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi versus State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 , we are of the view that quashing of the FIR would be in the interest of respondent No.2. Besides, no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed. The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of as such.

¶22

(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Madhu Rajmal Soni and Ors. v. Sheetal Vinay Soni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Rajmal Soni and Ors. v. Sheetal Vinay Soni and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Pasku Tulo Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Rajesh Janardan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sheetal D/O Satish Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bharatiya Janata Mathadi General Kamgar Sangh Vs Shri. Kohei Ueda, Managing Director, and Ors.

Shabbir Kamruddin Chhawadi and Anr. Vs Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.

Sanjay Jalindar Patil Vs Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.