Allowed

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

Bombay HC16 Feb 2022APL/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498-A IPC. High Court quashed the FIR on grounds that parties had amicably settled their marital disputes, the respondent agreed to withdraw parallel civil and criminal proceedings via consent minutes approved by the Court, and further prosecution would amount to futility.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; FIR No. 237 of 2013 and Crime Case No. 1546/2017 quashed.

Pranav Ashok Thaker and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH RUSHIKESH V PATIL V PATIL Date: 2022.02.28 16:04:20 +0530

¶2

1 of 6

¶3

13 APL.66.2022.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2022

¶6

Pranav Ashok Thaker & Anr. ...Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

********

¶10

Mr. Rahul A. Hande for the Applicants. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State. Adv. Kiran S. Mohite for Respondent No. 2. Ms. Archita P. Thaker Respondent No. 2 present.

¶11

********

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2022.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶16

The Applicants have fled this application for seeking quashment of FIR No. 237 of 2013 registered with Kherwadi Police Station, Bandra Mumbai, for the ofences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The facts giving rise in the present application can be summarized as follows:

R.V.Patil

2 of 6

13 APL.66.2022.doc

The marriage between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized as per the Hindu Religious rites and rituals on 17^th November, 2002 at Vadodara (Gujarat). Applicant No. 1 is having business at Mumbai. Disputes started soon after the marriage. It is alleged that Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were demanding Rs.2,00,000/from the parents of Respondent No. 2, but the said demand was not fulflled, therefore Respondent No. 2 was being harassed. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 suspected that Applicant No. 1 having illicit relationship with his relative. There were marriage discord between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 for a long period. Thereafter, being fed up with the physical and marital ill-treatment, Respondent No. 2 fled FIR No.237 of 2013 with Kherwadi Police Station, Bandra Mumbai against the Applicants.

¶22

It is submitted on behalf of learned Counsel for the Applicants that post fling of the application, the investigating ofcer completed the investigation and fled charge-sheet bearing Crime Case No. 1546/ PW/2017 against the Applicants. It is also submitted on behalf of Applicants that Applicants and Respondent No. 2 have settled their dispute amicably.

¶23

During the pendency of investigation, Applicant No. 1 fled a divorce petition. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 has fled an application under Domestic Violence Act. In the meantime, the father of Applicant No. 1 fled Suit bearing No. 21 of 2021 before this Court. During the

R.V.Patil

3 of 6

13 APL.66.2022.doc

course of hearing of the said suit, Applicants, Respondent No. 2 and father of Applicant No. 1 fled consent minutes. The copy of the same is produced at Exhibit- B. In the said consent terms, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw all the proceedings fled by her, read as follows:

¶28

“ 27. Defendant No. 3 herein undertakes to this Hon’ble Court that she shall, within 1 (one) week from the date of passing of an order by Hon’ble Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai granting Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 a divorce by mutual consent, as stated in Clause 24 hereinabove, make the required application(s) for unconditional withdrawal of the following proceedings fled by her:

¶29

(a) Appeal (L) No. 73 of 2020 in Suit No. 756 of 2015 fled in this Hon’ble Court.

¶30

(b) Writ Petition No. 3764 of 2015 fled in this Hon’ble Court.

¶31

(c) Writ Petition No. 4334 of 2015 fled in this Hon’ble Court.

¶32

(d) C. C. No.36/DV/2013 dated 20^th September, 2013 fled before the Hon’ble 32^nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra (East), Mumbai.

¶33

(e) Protest Petition dated 1^st January, 2020 in Police Case PW/0001546 fled before the Hon’ble 32^nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra (East), Mumbai.

¶34

28. The Plaintif, Defendant No. 4 and their family members shall withing 1 (one) week from on the date of

R.V.Patil

4 of 6

13 APL.66.2022.doc

passing of an order by Hon’ble Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai granting Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 a divorce by mutual consent, as stated in Clause 24 hereinabove, fle the required application(s) before this Hon’ble Court for quashing of FIR against all the accused bearing FIR No.237 of 2013 dated 28^th August, 2013 fled by Defendant No.3 before the Kherwadi Police Station, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Defendant No. 3 hereby undertakes to this Hon’ble Court to execute an afdavit recording her unconditional NOC for the same.

¶39

29. Defendant No. 3 agrees and undertakes to render all such and further assistance including remaining personally present in Court or through her Advocate for confrming and giving her no objection for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and/or any other assistance as may be required by the plaintif, Defendant No. 4 and their family members for the purpose of quashing the aforesaid FIR. However, all costs and expenses in respect of fling the aforesaid application(s) before this Hon’ble Court for quashing of FIR and in respect of Defendant No. 3’s no objection etc. shall be borne and paid by Defendant No. 4 alone only.

¶40

30. Defendant No. 3 agrees and undertakes that she will not fle any application protesting/challenging the C Summary Report fled by the police authorities before the Hon’ble 32^nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra (East), Mumbai in repsect of FIR bearing No. 111 of 2015 dated 29^th April, 2015.

¶41

31. The parties agree and undertake to withdraw police complaint(s), if any, fled by them against each other within the aforesaid period of 1(one) week from the date of passing of an order by Hon’ble Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai granting Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 a divorce by mutual consent.”

R.V.Patil

5 of 6

13 APL.66.2022.doc

The aforesaid consent terms were heard and accepted by this Court and disposed of the suit.

¶46

On perusal of the documents produced on record, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute with the intervention of friends and relatives. On specifc query put to Respondent No. 2, she reiterated that she signed the consent terms before this Court in Suit No. 21 of 2021. She admitted that she has decided to withdraw the proceedings fled by her against the Applicants. She has also given her no objection for quashing FIR No. 237 of 2013 and Criminal Case fled in pursuance thereof.

¶47

Considering the above referred facts, we are of the opinion that continuation of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 237 of 2013 would be nothing but an act of futility and we are of the opinion that learned Counsel for Applicants has made out a case for allowing the application.

¶48

In these circumstances and especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi V/s. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings except burdening the Criminal Courts which are pending already

R.V.Patil

6 of 6

13 APL.66.2022.doc

overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of Justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed.

¶53

In view of the above fact, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c) and disposed of accordingly.

¶54

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

¶55

R.V.Patil

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Ashok Thaker and Anr. v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Deodas Shah and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Laxminarayan Thard and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Renuka Siddheshwar Waghmare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Riaz Asgar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Ramchandra Bhagwat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.