Allowed

Sharad Waman Desale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2022APL/364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Bombay quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, and 328 IPC against the husband and in-laws. The court considered a consent affidavit and the wife's personal appearance confirming amicable settlement and willingness to co-reside.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing no. 0003/2020 registered at Kinhavali Police Station for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, and 328 IPC and any ancillary proceedings were quashed and set aside.

Sharad Waman Desale and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

7.APL.364.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2021

¶4

UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI

¶5

Digitally signed by UMESH SHRINIWAS MALANI Date: 2022.02.21 09:52:09 +0530

¶6

Sharad Waman Desale And Ors...Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

***

¶11

 Mr. Dheeraj Pancharge for Applicants.  Mr. Swapnil R. Chopade for Respondent NO. 2. ***

¶12

 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 S.P. TAVADE, JJ.
 DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2022.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.Heard learned Counsel appearing for respective

¶15

parties.

¶16

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶17

consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective
parties, heard finally.

¶18

3.Applicant No. 1 is the husband of Respondent

¶19

No. 2 whereas Applicant No. 2 to 4 are the other
matrimonial relations namely, mother-in-law, brother-
in-law and father-in-law respectively. Respondent No. 2

¶20

had approached the Kinhavali Police Station, Dist

Page 1 of 5

Umesh Malani

7.APL.364.2021.doc

Shahapur, District Thane. It was submitted in the
report that marriage between the Applicant NO.1 and
Respondent NO. 2 was solemnized on 30.04.2017. Though,
the couple led matrimonial life peacefully for period
of 1 years, sometime in the year 2018 the Respondent
No. 2 was carrying pregnancy and as such, was unable to
do household works. Applicants on that count started
ill-treating her. It was submitted in the report that
the Respondent No. 2 at times was subjected to abuses
and ill-treatment. On receipt of the report, FIR
bearing Crime No. 03/2020 registered against the
applicants for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, & 328 of IPC.

¶25

4.Learned Counsel for the Applicants invited our
attention to the copy of consent affidavit filed on
behalf of Respondent No.2 placed on record at Exhibit
19 to submit that the parties have arrived at an
amicable settlement.

¶26

5.Perusal of the said document further show that

¶27

the Respondent No. 2 stated that though due to minor differences and matrimonial discord, she had approached the police station by lodging report but, in view of Umesh Malani Page 2 of 5 of 5

¶28

Page 2 of 5 of 5

¶29

7.APL.364.2021.doc

¶30

the intervention of the elderly members of the family
and well-wishers, Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
started residing together and she records no objection
for quashing the subject FIR lodged against the
Applicants. Specific statements are made to that effect
in paragraphs 5 to 7.

¶31

6.On a query put to Respondent No. 2 as to

¶32

whether the terms of settlement are agreed as per her
own will and wish, the Respondent No. 2 who is

¶33

personally present in this Court, replied in
affirmative.

¶34

7.Considering these facts, we are of the opinion
that when the better sense had prevail over the parties
and the parties have decided to reside together
peacefully and lead peaceful matrimonial life and the
Respondent No. 2 giving her consent for quashment of
the subject FIR, no fruitful purpose would be serve by
keeping the subject FIR pending against the Applicants.

¶35

8.It will not be out of place to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court in the matter ofB. S.
Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386]

Page 3 of 5

Umesh Malani

7.APL.364.2021.doc

has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial
dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed,
even though the said offence is not compoundable in
terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant
observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras
14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:

¶40

“14.There is no doubt that the object
of introducing Chapter XX-A containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code
was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added with a
view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife
to coerce her or her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hyper-technical view would be counter
productive and would act against
interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that
non-exercise of inherent power to quash
the proceedings to meet the ends of
justice would prevent women from
settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal
Code.

¶41

15.In view of the above discussion, we
hold that the High Court in exercise of
its inherent powers can quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit
or affect the powers under Section 482
of the Code.”

¶42

Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench

¶43

of this Court inAbasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of

Page 4 of 5

Umesh Malani

7.APL.364.2021.doc

Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft 46].

¶48

9. Considering the above referred facts and

¶49

considering the fact that the parties now decided to
part their ways by giving full stop to their earlier
matrimonial life and are willing to open a new chapter
in their life, on their own, without causing any
disturbance or interference in each other’s life, we
deem it appropriate to allow the Application.
Accordingly, The first information report bearing no.
0003/2020 registered at Kinhavali Police Station on
03.01.2020 for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 328 of IPC and any other
proceedings arising out the said FIR, is hereby quashed
and set aside.

¶50

10.Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶51

(S.P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Umesh Malani

Sharad Waman Desale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Waman Desale and Ors. 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

Pranav Ashok Thaker and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Douglas Saldanha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Riaz Asgar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayyed Sabir Usman Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. Formaly Known as Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ishtiyak Adalat Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.