Allowed

Nitesh Dayalal Jain and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2022WP/788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Court relied on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, allowing the petition due to the amicable settlement and resumed cohabitation of the parties, rendering the continuation of prosecution oppressive.

What did the court decide?

Quash and set aside FIR No.123 of 2021 registered at Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai.

Nitesh Dayalal Jain and Anr. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

10-cr-WP-788-22.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH SADANAND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SADANAND SHERLA SHERLA Date: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2022.08.17 12:07:20 +0500 WRIT PETITION NO. 788 OF 2022

¶3

Nitesh D. Jain and ors. … Petitioners V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Devendra S. Rajapurkar for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr. Satyaram G. /b Ms Rimpal Trivedi for the Respondent No.2.

¶6

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 10 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.123 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”, for short) dated 11 May 2021 registered at Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶10

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 in-laws.

¶11

1 / 3

¶12

Dinesh Sherla

¶13

10-cr-WP-788-22.doc

¶14

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the 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

¶15

The Respondent No.2 has filed the consent affidavit 27 January 2022. Respondent No.2 has stated that pursuant to amicable settlement, she went back to her matrimonial home and they are cohabiting together. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

“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

¶18

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

Dinesh Sherla

¶21

10-cr-WP-788-22.doc

¶22

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 discord which is now resolved and the parties are residing together. The allegations are totally of personal in 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 allowed in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads thus:

¶24

“c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing No.123 of 2021 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai.”

¶25

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Dinesh Sherla

Nitesh Dayalal Jain and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Dayalal Jain 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

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Vishnu Dattatraya Barve and Ors.

Rajesh Samaydin Chaudhari @ Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Mangilal Rawal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagesha Rajendra Bhatia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitesh Dayalal Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Ruia Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.