Allowed

Pravin Dattatraya Shirore and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2022WP/710/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an FIR and criminal case under Section 498-A IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Court applied the Giggon v State of Punjab principle, noting the parties have settled and resumed cohabitation. Finding the possibility of conviction remote, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No.223 of 2016 and RCC No.679 of 2017 were quashed and set aside.

Pravin Dattatraya Shirore and Anr. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

37-cr-WP-710-22.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2022.08.10 10:59:55 +0500

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2022

¶4

Pravin D. Shirore and anr. … Petitioners V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Anuj Tiwari for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.1– State. Ms Saba Shaikh h/f. Mr. Saurabh Raut for Respondent No.2

¶7

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 2 AUGUST 2022.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. 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.223 of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”, for short) dated 13 October 2016 registered at Satpur Police Station, Nashik against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and the criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 679 of 2017 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik arising out of the said FIR.

¶11

1 / 4

¶12

Dinesh Sherla

¶13

37-cr-WP-710-22.doc

¶14

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 No.2 is her mother-in-law.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now they are cohabiting together. 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 submit that the 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.

¶16

The Respondent No.2 has filed the consent affidavit dated 2 August 2022. Respondent No.2 has stated that pursuant to amicable settlement, she went back to her matrimonial home and they are cohabiting together with their minor child Arnav. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR and the criminal case in question are quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶17

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

Dinesh Sherla

¶20

37-cr-WP-710-22.doc

¶21

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

¶22

“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.”

¶23

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 dispute, which is now over and the parties are residing together. 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. Considering these facts and circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, Writ Petition is

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

Dinesh Sherla

¶26

37-cr-WP-710-22.doc

¶27

accordingly allowed and the FIR No.223 of 2016 dated 13 October 2016 registered at Satpur Police Station, Nashik against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and the R.C.C. No. 679 of 2017 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik are quashed and set aside.

¶28

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

Dinesh Sherla

Pravin Dattatraya Shirore and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Dattatraya Shirore 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Pravin Tulshidas Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Jitendra Suresh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya S. Panse and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mockunj Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.