Allowed

Pramod Mahadev Tawate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2019WP/367/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No.367 of 2019, petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under various sections of IPC 1860 related to matrimonial disputes. The High Court of Bombay, observing that the dispute was settled amicably and consent was voluntarily given, relied on B.S. Joshi to quash the FIR to serve the interests of justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is made absolute; subject FIR is quashed and set aside.

Pramod Mahadev Tawate and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

87 wp 367.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.367 of 2019

¶4

Pramod Mahadev Tawate and ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶5

…...Petitioners

¶6

…...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State. Mr. Rajesh S. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 16^th APRIL, 2019.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

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

¶11

The petition is filed for quashing and setting-aside FIR bearing CR No.275 of 2018 registered with Kherwadi Police Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 342, 324, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Rest of the petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.1 and in-laws of respondent No.2. Matrimonial dispute between the parties gave rise to filing of the subject FIR. Pending investigation, the parties, however,

¶13

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

¶14

87 wp 367.19.doc

¶15

settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of their elders and wellwishers, and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, they have now approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit dated 16^th April, 2019. In paragraph 3 thereof, following averments are made which reads as under:

¶16

“3. I say that after passing of order dated 26-02-2019 I myself and my husband i.e. Petitioner No 1 gathered family meeting of Senior and elderly members of both the families. I say that after long lasting intervention by the close relatives and senior members of both the families, we have resolved our family dispute amicably and peacefully. I say that Petitioner No.1 assured that he will not repeat any unwanted incident. After realizing the fate of the complaint and good conduct of Petitioner No.1, I am sure that we will reside peacefully and happily in future and will give good healthy, mentally and psychologically sound atmosphere to up-bring the future of our minor children.”

¶17

In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, she has given her consent for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, she specifically stated that she has gone through the petition and the affidavit as well and has fully understood the contents thereof. She further submitted that the dispute between herself and petitioners is settled and she is now happily residing with petitioner No.1. She has further confirmed that she has given consent for quashing the subject FIR on her own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

¶19

87 wp 367.19.doc

¶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 subject FIR would be in the interest of respondent No.2. Besides, no purpose would be served by keeping the FIR alive 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 and set-aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) and is disposed of as such.

¶21

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

¶22

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Pramod Mahadev Tawate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Mahadev Tawate 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

A.C. Narayanan. and Anr. . Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A Ramalingam Ramesh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Dnyaneshwar Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Shipping Corporation of India Officers Association Vs the Shipping Corporation of India and Anr.

Raghukul Kala Krida Va Sanskrutik Mandal through Harshad Vilas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samrat Kala Krida Va Sanskrutik Mandal through Its President and Authorized Dhanpal Gunda Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Shirol Police Station