Allowed

Sameer v. Shah v Shilpa S Poojary and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2023WP/1536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the court quashed an FIR alleging offenses under IPC sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners submitted that the domestic dispute had been amicably settled, with the parties agreeing to separate. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that allowing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.762 of 2020 lodged with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, qua the Petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Sameer v Shah Vs Shilpa S Poojary and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2023.03.03 15:21:15 +0530

¶2

wp-1536.22.doc

¶3

Chitra Sonawane.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1536 OF 2022

¶6

Sameer V Shah

¶7

Age: 31 Years, Occu: Service Currently residing at: 411, Jay Ambe Building, Don Lane, Near Little Flower School, Pachole Road, Nalla Sopara E, Palghar 401209.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shilpa S Poojary

¶11

Age: 29 Years, Occ: Service Currently residing at:F 45, Bhagwati Chawl, Chincholi Bunder Road, Nr Mohan Hotel, Malad W, Mumbai – 400 064.

¶12

The Senior Inspector of Police Malad Police Station, Mumbai.

¶13

State of Maharashtra, through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

Page No. 1 of 5 ______________________________________________ 21 February 2023

¶16

wp-1536.22.doc

¶17

Chitra Sonawane.

¶18

Mr Vishal Kolekar i/by Mr Neeraj B. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr Kamlesh Mishra for the Respondent No.1.

¶19

Mr A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondents No.2 and 3.

¶20

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 21 FEBRUARY 2023.

¶22

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR No.762 of 2020, lodged with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of Respondent No.1/original Complainant for the alleged offence punishable u/ss 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and that Respondent No.1 has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶26

Page No. 2 of 5 ______________________________________________ 21 February 2023

¶27

Chitra Sonawane.

¶28

wp-1536.22.doc 4. Perused the papers. Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No.1. After marriage, Respondent No.1 started residing at her matrimonial home with the Petitioner. Since marital discord/differences post-marriage, Respondent No.1 lodged the FIR described above, vide C.R.No762 of 2020, with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, against the Petitioner. Allegations of ill-treatment and harassment were made.

¶29

When this writ petition was placed before us, it was stated by both the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 that the dispute, which was a purely domestic dispute, had been amicably settled. They submitted that Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have decided to be separated, and as such, they agreed to part peacefully and gracefully by dissolving the marriage. Accordingly, Consent Terms were drawn and filed in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, vide Petition No.1000 of 2021. A copy of the Consent Terms is annexed to this petition. The parties assure that they will abide by the terms and conditions in the Consent Terms. Respondent No.1 also filed the consent Affidavit. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Petitioner submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have decided to withdraw all the allegations and the litigations pending by or against each other and separate amicably. Respondent No.1 has no

¶30

Page No. 3 of 5 ______________________________________________ 21 February 2023

¶31

wp-1536.22.doc

¶32

Chitra Sonawane.

¶33

objection to quashing the impugned FIR.

¶34

Respondent No.1 is present before us. On questioning, she reiterates what was stated by her in her Affidavit and further states that she has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. Respondent No.1 has been identified by her Counsel. We are informed that in the impugned FIR, the charge sheet is not yet filed. The learned Counsel for the parties submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive, given the settlement between the parties. They submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.²

¶35

7 . The FIR arising from purely domestic disputes can be quashed by consent in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred cases. The dispute being matrimonial is a private dispute. Given the settlement between the parties, Respondent No.1 will not support the prosecution case. The accusation would be flawed, and allowing criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of the law. It will also disrupt the compromise and interfere with the restoration of peace. Nothing fruitful will, therefore, come out of the prosecution in

¶36

1 (2012)10 SCC 303.

¶37

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶38

Page No. 4 of 5 ______________________________________________ 21 February 2023

¶39

Chitra Sonawane.

¶40

wp-1536.22.doc question. The parties wish to put their past behind them. The dispute also does not have any ramifications on society at large.

¶41

Considering the nature of the dispute, the Consent Terms entered into between the parties, the consent Affidavit of Respondent No.1 and the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra), there does not impede allowing the petition.

¶42

Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the FIR bearing C.R.No.762 of 2020, registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, qua the Petitioner, is quashed and set aside.

¶43

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order for costs.

¶44

[ R. N. LADDHA, J.] [ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶45

Page No. 5 of 5 ______________________________________________ 21 February 2023

Sameer v. Shah v Shilpa S Poojary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer v. Shah v Shilpa S Poojary and Ors.

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

Shubham S/O Jivaji Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Nishant @ Munna Nandkumar Mane Vs State of Maharashtra

Narendra Manohar Ingale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Uma Sanjay Jadhavar Vs State of Maharashtra

Smt Meera Pappu Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Bharat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.