This case involved a petitioner disputing the necessity of criminal proceedings following a divorce by mutual consent decree. The court found that proceeding agreements between the parties justified quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
983 sr.no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1575 OF 2022
NARENDRA ASHOK SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Jasraj Jain APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.M. Phule Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ajay S. Pagedar
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2022.
P.C.:-
{2} 983 sr.no..odt
contents. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a case, where we should exercise our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR as well as the entire proceedings.
[RAJESH S. PATIL] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings after the filing of a divorce by mutual consent petition and a decree.
Whether the repetition of facts by the parties and their agreement to end disputes warrants quashing of proceedings.
Whether Writ Petition No.1575 of 2022 should be allowed in terms of prayer clause 23(a).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NARENDRA ASHOK SURYAWANSHI AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ANOTHER
VIBHA KANKANWADI
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
