Applicant sought quashing of FIR involving Sections 498-A IPC and related charges. Court found dispute settled amicably and wife consented to quashing. Court relied on Gian Singh and allowed application.
FIR No.834 of 2021 registered with Malwani Police Station is quashed.
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.
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2021.11.20 GONSALVES 14:20:22 +0530
18.apl789-21.doc
sg
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.789 OF 2021
Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari .. Applicant v/s.
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Khalid Khan, for the Applicant.
Ms. Nibha Jha, for Respondent No.2.
Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL JJ.
DATE : 16 NOVEMBER 2021.
P.C:-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
1 of 3
sg
2/3
18.apl789-21.doc
that the parties have resolved their dispute and Respondent No.2 has given consent for quashing of the FIR. The perusal of the FIR shows that the dispute led to filing of the FIR is a matrimonial dispute. Respondent No.2 is the wife of the Applicant. She had filed the FIR alleging mental and physical cruelty and demand of dowry.
“1. Upon her complaint, C.R.No.834/2021 came to be registered by Malwani Police Station against her husband, i.e. the Applicant, and same is outcome of matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and Respondent No.2.
2 of 3
18.apl789-21.doc
3/3
sg
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has power to quash an FIR in a matrimonial dispute upon voluntary consent of the parties.
Whether consent for quashing was given voluntarily without coercion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab And AnotherRelied on¶37
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
