Disposed

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

Bombay HC15 Nov 2021WP/3789/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an FIR under IPC sections 498A, 323, and 504 lodged by the husband. The court disposed of the matter because the prosecution had submitted a summary report to the Magistrate, rendering the FIR no longer surviving.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the underlying FIR is no longer surviving due to the acceptance of the prosecution summary.

Neeraj Hampal S/O Kulbir Singh Hampal Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

34-wp-3789-19

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2019

¶5

Neeraj Hampal ..Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Ms. Priyanka Lokhande i/b. Prashant Mishra for Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State/Respondent. Ms. Tejaswini Patil, PSI, Manpada Police station, Dombivli, Present.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 15 NOVEMBER 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP.

¶12

The Petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 479 of 2016 under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by the Respondent No.2 at Manpada police station, District Thane.

¶13

While issuing notice on 06 February 2020, the Division bench of this court has noted that the marriage between the parties is

¶14

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2021.11.16 17:05:12 +0530

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

Gokhale

¶17

234-wp-3789-19

¶18

already dissolved. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the whereabouts of the Respondent No.2 are not known and even during the proceedings before the Family Court at Delhi, the Respondent No.2 did not appear, neither filed any written statement. The notice issued in this Petition on the address given has been returned with the remark that the Respondent No.2 does not reside at the given address.

¶19

It is not necessary, however, to proceed further in view of the statement made, on instructions, by the learned APP, who has also shown us the record that a report (‘A’ Summary) was submitted to the concerned Magistrate on 18 August 2018 which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate on 03 November 2018, whereby the F.I.R. in question is now no longer survive.

¶20

In the light of this development, nothing further survives in this petition.

¶21

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶23

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Hampal S/O Kulbir Singh Hampal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Gurbir Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Imam Husain Bagwan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atul Vilas Gaonkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Savita Nirajsingh Raj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdev Surse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Morsingh@Pintu Sonu Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.