Allowed

Rahul Mathpal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2022WP/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an FIR and pending criminal case involving matrimonial offences under sections 498-A, 406, and 377 IPC. The court allowed the petition based on an amicable settlement and the remote possibility of conviction, relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in CR No. 110/2016 and RCC 991/2016 registered at Rabale Police Station and pending with JMFC, Vashi under Sections 498-A, 406, 377 & 34 IPC were quashed and set aside.

Rahul Mathpal and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

28--cr-WP-7-22.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2022.08.10 10:34:00 +0500

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2022

¶4

Rahul Mathpal and ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶5

Ms Krupali H. Rajani for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Onam Hingorani for the Respondent No.2.

¶6

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 1 AUGUST 2022.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to quash the First Information Report No.0110 of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”, for short) dated 22 March 2016 registered at Rabale Police Station, New Mumbai against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 377 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 991 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi arising out of the said FIR.

¶10

1 / 4

¶11

Dinesh Sherla

¶12

28--cr-WP-7-22.doc

¶13

The aforesaid crime came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2, who has inter alia alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband and inlaws. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is submitted that the parties have filed the consent terms in Marriage Petition No.185 of 2015 before the Civil Judge (SD), Thane. It is submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties submits that present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab^1.

¶15

The Respondent No.2 has filed the consent affidavit dated 25 February 2022. Respondent No.2 has stated that pursuant to amicable settlement, the Petitioner No.1 has deposited amount of Rs.1700000/- before Civil Judge (SD), Thane towards permanent alimony. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the criminal case and FIR in question are quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶16

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

Dinesh Sherla

¶19

28--cr-WP-7-22.doc

¶20

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held :

¶21

“But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.”

¶22

We have examined the facts of the present case in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case. The main reason for filing of the FIR appears to be matrimonial discord. The allegations are totally of personal nature. In view of the settlement between the parties, Respondent No.2 is not going to support the prosecution case and therefore, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Nothing fruitful will therefore come out of the prosecution in question. Apart from it, if the criminal case in question is not quashed, the settlement arrived at between the parties would be disrupted. Considering these facts and

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

Dinesh Sherla

¶25

28--cr-WP-7-22.doc

¶26

circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus.

¶27

“b) The entire proceedings in CR NO.I 110/2016 registered with Rabale Police Station and RCC 991/2016 pending on the file of Ld. JMFC, Vashi U/S. 498A, 406, 377 & 34 of Indian Penal Code may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶28

Writ Petition is disposed of.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

4 / 4

Dinesh Sherla

Rahul Mathpal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mathpal and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Shivaji Gangurde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Kachru Lilke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Sunil Tasband Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Tulshidas Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ketan Anant Kumar Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Maruti Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.