Allowed

Rohit Nandan Nayak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2019WP/750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by husband for quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes pending settlement. Petitioner and wife settled amicably via Family Court consent terms. The court found no coercion and, relying on precedent, held that quashing proceedings served the interest of justice and reduced the burden on criminal courts.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing C.R.No. 490 of 2016 is quashed and set aside; the application is made absolute.

Rohit Nandan Nayak Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/3 71 WP 750-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 750 of 2018

¶4

Rohit Nandan Nayak Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Trupti Mahimkar for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Thakare, P.P with Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr.Vilas A. Sawant for respondent no.2.

¶9

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

¶10

DATED : 1^st JULY 2019

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State.

¶13

2 Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Matrimonial disputes between the parties gave rise to the filing of civil as well as criminal proceedings by the parties against one another and the subject petition 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 Consent Terms before the Family Court in M.J. Petition No. A-2566 of 2016.

¶14

Tilak

¶15

2/3 71 WP 750-18.doc

¶16

3 In pursuance of the understanding arrived at between the parties, they have now approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 15^th October 2018. In paragraph no.7 she has given no objection to quash and set aside the proceedings of the subject criminal case. Both the petitioner and respondent no.2 are personally present before the Court. On being questioned, she specifically stated that she has gone through the application and the 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 will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶17

4 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.

Tilak

3/3

71 WP 750-18.doc

5 Hence, we quash and set aside the FIR bearing C.R.No. 490 of 2016 registered with V.P. Road Police Station. The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶22

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

¶23

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶24

Tilak

Rohit Nandan Nayak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Nandan Nayak v. 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

Sonali Praful Dekate and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru Secretary, Mininstr of Comm. and Industries , Dept. of Industrial Policy and or

Satish Shivajirao Kakde Vs the Union of India Thru Secretary, Dept. of Food and Civil Supplies and Ors.

Ms. Surekha Babu Nakman and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Dept. of Industrial Policy and

Ravikiran Ganpat Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vijen Girishchandra Jhaveri Vs Director of Revenue Intelligence and Anr.