Allowed

Adarsh Narendra Kirti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2019WP/972/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for matrimonial disputes. The Court relied on an amicable settlement and the respondent's consent, holding that continuing proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing No.113 of 2017 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai, was quashed and set aside.

Adarsh Narendra Kirti and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/3 905 WP-972.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.972 OF 2019

¶4

Mr. Adarsh Narendra Kirti & Ors. Vs

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav for the petitioners. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. A.R. Godhia for Respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

DATED : 17^th JULY 2019

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State.

¶13

This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing No.113 of 2017 registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 with Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶14

The petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are husband and wife and the rest of the petitioners are relatives of

¶15

AJN

¶16

2/3 905 WP-972.19.doc

¶17

petitioner No.1and in-laws of respondent No.2. 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.

¶18

The parties, however, with the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, have settled the disputes amicably and filed a consent terms before the Court of Sessions at Dindoshi in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1223 of 2017, a copy of which is annexed at Ex-B at page 15 of this petition.

¶19

In terms of the above understanding mentioned in the consent terms, petitioners have now approached this Court for quashing the subject FIR. The Respondent No.2 has also filed an Affidavit dated 26^th June 2019. In para 3 of the said Affidavit, she has given her consent and requested this Court to quash the FIR. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. On inquiry, she states that she has understood the contents of the consent terms and she also states that she is not interested in prosecuting the subject FIR in view of the settlement between the parties.

¶20

We have also perused the FIR and found that there are no specific allegations against the applicant and the allegations are general in nature. In our opinion, the provisions of Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are

¶21

AJN

¶22

3/3 905 WP-972.19.doc

¶23

not attracted.

¶24

In light of above, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings against the accused.

¶25

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.

¶26

Hence, we quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.113 of 2017 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai. The petition is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) of the petition.

¶27

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

¶28

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶29

AJN

Adarsh Narendra Kirti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Narendra Kirti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Vivek Gajanan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pururava Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Angad Kapish Saluja Vs Naseer Nasim Shah and Ors.

Ayub Shabbir Sande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Suresh Varbhavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yeshwant Kumar S/O Mahendra Ram Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and Ors.