Allowed

Khan Tadvi Shahzad S/O. Siraj Mohammad Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Nov 2022APPLN/1997/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application filed to quash FIR under IPC 498-A and related sections. Court allowed application based on settlement between husband and wife, payment of maintenance, and withdrawal of allegations by the wife.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' and 'C-1' based on settlement and withdrawal of allegations.

Khan Tadvi Shahzad S/O. Siraj Mohammad Khan and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

{1}

¶2

911-Cri.A-1997-2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1997 OF 2021

¶5

KHAN TADVI SHAHZAD S/O SIRAJ MOHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. U.B. Bilolikar APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.M. Phule Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Almas Shaikh Riyaz

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶9

RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 23^rd NOVEMBER, 2022

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

It appears that applicant No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 – wife have arrived at settlement. In any matrimonial matters they are the parties who would arrive at settlement. Though the documents have been tendered stating that, the consent terms have been fled between the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, since the other applicants are not signatories to the consent terms but they are the relatives of the applicant No.1, this is taken as afdavit on behalf of applicant No.1 as well as the respondent No.2. It is marked at Exh. A.

¶12

Pooja K.

¶13

{2} 911-Cri.A-1997-2021

¶14

Applicants were facing prosecution for the ofences punishable under Section 323, 498-A, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on marriage) Ace, 2019 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad vide C.R. No. 354 of 2021.

¶15

By Exh. A, it has been stated that, the applicant No.1 has paid amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs only) by way of Demand Draft to the respondent No.2, which is towards past and future maintenance. It is also stated that, the applicant No.1 returned all the articles to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 in turn has given consent for quashing of F.I.R. as she is withdrawing all the allegations against the applicants. The respondent No.2 is personally present before this Court. Taking into consideration the reiteration all the contents of the afdavit Exh. A, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and ‘C-1’.

¶16

No order as to costs.

¶17

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

¶18

Pooja K.

Khan Tadvi Shahzad S/O. Siraj Mohammad Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khan Tadvi Shahzad S/O. Siraj Mohammad Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Vitthal Mokhedi Honshete Vs Girish S/O. Sakharam Pampatwar and Others

Sarang Diwakar Amle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dhananjay Vasudeo Yadnyik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhimrao Arjun Shekade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ankush Rohidas Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Udaya Sankar Marimuthu Vs the State of Maharashtra