Allowed

Vinayak Krishan Teli and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Apr 2023WP/1076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed a court order following an order quashing RC No.983/2019 and served by a consent terms dated 15th December 2022. The court allowed petitions after the respondent wife appeared and reiterated no objection to quashing the crime.

What did the court decide?

R.C.C No.983 of 2019 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai arising out of C.R No.275 of 2018 registered with Manikpur Police Station is quashed.

Vinayak Krishan Teli and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 3 15.wp.1076.2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1076 OF 2023

¶4

Vinayak Krishan Teli and anotherPetitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4437 OF 2018

¶9

Uma Mangesh Hindalekar and othersPetitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and othersRespondents

¶12

Mr.Rahul Rao i/by Mr.Siddharth Dustakar, Advocate for Petitioner in
WP No.1076/2023 and for Respondent no.2 in WP No.4437/2018.
Ms.Deepa Panicker i/by Mr.Kunal Jha for Petitioner in WP
No.4437/2018 and for Respondent no.2 in WP No.1076/2023.
Ms.G.P.Mulekar, APP, for State.

¶13

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE :26th April 2023

¶15

PC :

¶16

1. Learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners seeks leave to

¶17

transpose Petitioner no.2 as Respondent no.2 being first informant.

¶18

Amendment be carried out forthwith and in any event during the
course of the day.

¶19

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH SURESH SURESH THATTE Date: 2023.05.03 THATTE 09:59:57 +0530

¶20

2.Writ Petition No.1076 of 2023 is filed by husband of
Respondent no.2 and Writ Petition No.4437 of 2018 is filed by in-
laws of Respondent no.3 i.e. wife of Petitioner in Writ Petition

¶21

2 of 3 15.wp.1076.2023.doc

¶22

No.1076 of 2023.

¶23

3.Mr.Rao, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners in both
Petitions submitted that Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1076 of 2023
i.e. husband and Respondent no.2 wife have executed Consent Terms
dated 15th December 2022 for dissolution of marriage in M.P No.501
of 2018 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Vasai. In paragraph
no.4 thereof, Respondent no.2 wife has agreed for quashing of R.C.C
No.983 of 2019 arising out of C.R No.275 of 2018 registered with
Manikpur Police Station, Vasai. He submitted that Respondent no.2
has filed Affidavits, dated 26th April 2023 in Writ Petition No.1076 of
2023 and dated 10th February 2023 in Writ Petition No.4437 of 2018.
That, in both the Affidavits, Respondent wife has reiterated the fact
of filing of Consent Terms in the matrimonial dispute i.e. M.P.No.501
of 2018 and her `No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in
question. She has stated that, she is affirming the said Affidavit at
her own accord without any fraud, coercion and/or force by
anybody else.

¶24

Mr.Rao submitted that in view of paragraph 7(a) of Consent
Terms dated 15th December 2022, Petitioner, husband today has
handed over demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent wife.
Photocopy of the same is taken on record.

¶25

4. Learned Advocate for Respondent wife conceded to the fact of

¶26

3 of 3 15.wp.1076.2023.doc

¶27

filing of Affidavits dated 26th April 2023 and 10th February 2023
respectively in the aforesaid petitions.

¶28

5.Respondent, wife is personally present in the Court and
through her Advocate reiterated the contents of her said Affidavits
and her `No Objection’ for quashing of R.C.C No.983 of 2019
pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai arising out
of C.R No.275 of 2018 registered with Manikpur Police Station.

¶29

In view thereof, R.C.C No.983 of 2019 pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai arising out of C.R No.275 of
2018 registered with Manikpur Police Station is quashed. Both
Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

¶31

MST

Vinayak Krishan Teli and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Krishan Teli and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipul Roopa Chauhan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratapsingh Mangalprasad Rathore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Moses Bababhai Chudesra Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ankit Sunil Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Seema Sunil Himane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Salam Iqbal Hamdule and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.