The court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal case after a matrimonial dispute was settled through divorce under Section 130B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent No.2 consented, leading to the petition being allowed and the case dismissed.
Rule absolute made in terms of prayer clause (a); the petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
15-cri-wp-45-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2020
Mr. Dayanand Puthran V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr.
… Petitioner
… Respondents
Ms Krupali H. Rajani for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms N.S. Bobade for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 4, 2020.
P.C.
1] The matrimonial dispute between the parties led to filing of Petition No.Ai5o3o of 2.1. before the Family C o urt at Thane. There, the consent terms have been reached before the C o uncillor. According to the said terms, the parties are getting marriage dissolved under Section 13oB of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2] As a part of this compromise, the criminal case registered on complaint of wife is to be quashed.
1/2
Dinesh Sherla
15-cri-wp-45-20.doc
3o] Respondent No.2 is present with her advocate. Petitioner
is also present with his advocate.
4] Respondent No.2 has accordingly given separate affidavit bringing no objection on record. Orally also, she has given no objection.
5o] Accordingly, accepting joint request, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and dispose of the petition.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2/2
Dinesh Sherla
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of a criminal case caused by matrimonial dispute is maintainable upon consent.
Whether the joint request of parties to quash the criminal case should be accepted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Dayanand Puthran
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
N.R. BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
