Allowed

Ajay Harisishan Chandak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2019WP/1756/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench quashed a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute under Section 498A IPC.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of criminal case bearing RCC No.2548 of 2014 arising out of FIR CR No. I-186 of 2013 and summary criminal case No.7402 of 2013 are quashed and set-aside.

What the court decided

Ajay Harisishan Chandak and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

4. WP 1756.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1756 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Ajay Harikishan Chandak and ors. versus

¶5

…...Petitioners

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. …..Respondents

¶7

Ms. Dhvani Jain i/b. C. K. Legal, advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Sujay H. Gangal, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 8^th JULY, 2019.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to amend the prayer clause of the petition to give the details of the criminal case. Leave as prayed for, is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith

¶11

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

¶12

The petition is filed for quashing and setting-aside the proceedings of criminal case bearing RCC No.2548 of 2014 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The said case arises out of FIR bearing CR No. I-186 of 2013 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).

¶13

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

¶14

4. WP 1756.17.doc

¶15

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married in the year

¶16

Rest of the petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.1 and inlaws of respondent No.2. Matrimonial dispute between the parties gave rise to filing of civil as well as criminal cases and the subject criminal case is one of them. Pending trial, the parties settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of their elders and well-wishers and have, accordingly, filed compromise pursis in civil writ petition No.4030 of 2014, a copy of which is annexed at page 108 of the petition. In terms of the understanding arrived at between the parties, they have now approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent. Respondent No.2 has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 30^th April, 2019, In paragraph 5 thereof, she has given her no objection for quashing and setting-aside the proceedings of the subject criminal case. Both, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are personally present before the Court. They make a statement that they will abide by the terms of the compromise pursis referred above. In addition to above, respondent No.2 who is personally present before the Court, stated that she has gone through the petition and affidavit as well and has fully understood the contents thereof. She has further confirmed that she has given no objection for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case out of her own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2 also undertakes to withdraw the

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

¶18

4. WP 1756.17.doc

¶19

summary criminal case No.7402 of 2013 filed under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC pending before Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. The undertaking is accepted.

¶20

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 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 criminal proceedings 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 proceedings of the subject criminal case are required to be quashed and set-aside. Thus, the proceedings of criminal case bearing RCC No.2548 of 2014 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune and arising out of FIR bearing CR No. I-186 of 2013 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune, are quashed and set-aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed.

¶21

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶22

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Ajay Harisishan Chandak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ajay Harisishan Chandak 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar Kisan Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Arun Kumar Sinharoy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Marotrao Chaudhari Vs State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bipin Kantilal Joshi Vs Shailesh Chandarana and Anr.

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Hazi Abdul Mannan Sheikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.