Allowed

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2021APL/795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC regarding offences under the Muslim Women Act. The FIR, filed by the wife due to a matrimonial dispute, was quashable as the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the wife consented without coercion.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash Special L.A.C. FIR No.24 of 2021 is allowed.

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2021.11.20 GONSALVES 14:20:21 +0530

18.1apl795-21.doc

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.795 OF 2021

¶8

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari .. Applicant v/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra And Anr. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Khalid Khan, for the Applicant.

¶11

Ms. Nibha Jha, for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent No.1.

¶13

CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL JJ.

¶14

DATE : 16 NOVEMBER 2021.

¶15

P.C:-

¶16

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

This is an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash Special L.A.C. FIR bearing No.24 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, punishable under Sections 3, 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 upon the complaint filed by Respondent No.2.

¶18

The ground on which the FIR is sought to be quashed is

1 of 3

2/3

18.1apl795-21.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.

¶24

In the affidavit that is filed by Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 has stated as under:

¶25

“1. Upon her complaint, Special L.A.C. C.R.No.24/2021 came to be registered by Oshiwara Police Station against her husband, i.e. the Applicant, and same is outcome of matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and Respondent No.2.

¶26

Dispute between them is amicably settled and accordingly they have decided to part ways and continuing further in their respective lives.

¶27

As the dispute is amicably settled, she gives her consent/no objection for quashing of Special L.A.C. C.R.No.24 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai.

¶28

The affidavit is executed without any force or coercion and she has no objection if Special L.A.C. C.R. No.24 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, which is lodged upon any compliant is quashed and set aside.

¶29

Dispute between them is amicably settled out of her own free will, therefore, she do not wish to prosecute case against the Applicant or pursue any legal proceeding against the Applicant in the subject matter.

2 of 3

3/3

18.1apl795-21.doc

Dispute given rise to the present complaint is private in nature which establishes that no purpose will be served to conduct the trial.

¶35

Present affidavit is executed for better and effectual quash/withdraw/NOC to set aside Special L.A.C.C.R. No.24 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai.”

¶36

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 states that Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and she has reiterated her statements made in the affidavit.

¶37

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the FIR, it is clear that the resultant fact situation squarely falls within the ambit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab And Another¹ , where the Supreme Court has held that cases such as this, where the parties are putting an end to a matrimonial dispute, the High Court has power to quash the FIR of a cognizable offence by consent of parties. It is also clear that the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 is without coercion.

¶38

In light thereof, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) qua the Applicant.

¶39

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶40

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶41

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

¶42

3 of 3

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari 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

Savita Nirajsingh Raj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdev Surse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Neeraj Hampal S/O Kulbir Singh Hampal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shital Alias Nitin Bhimrao Kharat Vs the District Magistrate Satara and Anr.

Abu Bakar Umer Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Rashid Nasir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.