Allowed

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023WP/191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal writ petitions seek quashing of an FIR alleging Section 498A offences. The High Court allowed the petitions after noting an amicable settlement and consent terms between the parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing C.R.No. 38 of 2018 was quashed and set aside. Petitioner No.1 in WP 899 of 2020 ordered to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs.

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

02+-WP-899-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 899 OF 2020

¶4

1. Tausique Qurban Shaikh

¶5

2. Kalima Quarban Shaikh ...Petitioners
Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Maharashtra

¶7

2. Mrs. Ayesha Tausique Shaikh

¶8

 ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2019

¶11

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler … Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶14

2. Ayesha Tausique Shaikh

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

Ms. Anjali Joshi i/b Mr. Adnan N. Shaikh, for the Petitioners, in
both the Petitions.

¶17

Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1– State.
Mr. Sumeet Vankadkar, for the Respondent No.2, in both the
Petitions.

¶18

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2023.

¶20

P. C. :

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

REKHA

PRAKASH PATIL

Rekha Patil 1/5

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2023.02.16 16:21:14 +0530

¶26

2Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith in both the Petitions
with the consent of the parties and the Petitions are taken up for
final disposal. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the
respondent No.1–State and learned Counsel Mr.Sumeet Vankadkar
waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶27

3By these Petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek quashing and setting
aside of the FIR, bearing C.R.No. 38 of 2018, registered with the
Kurar Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Quashing is sought on the premise, that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute.

¶28

4Perused the papers. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 899 of 2020,
the petitioner no.1 is the husband and the petitioner No.2 is the
mother-in-law, respectively, of the respondent No. 2 and in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 191 of 2019, the petitioner is the sister-in-law of
the respondent No.2.

¶29

Rekha Patil 2/5

¶30

02+-WP-899-2020.odt

¶31

5It is alleged that the petitioner No.1 got married to the
respondent No.2 on 18th May, 2017, as per Muslim rites and
Customs and pursuant to which, the respondent No.2 started
residing at her matrimonial house. Due to marital discord and
alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioners, the
respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home in January, 2018 and
lodged the aforesaid FIR, as against the petitioners alleging the
aforesaid offences. Admittedly, charge-sheet has not been filed in
the said C.R. till date.

¶32

6In the interregnum, during the pendency of the investigation
of the aforesaid C.R., the parties decided to amicably settled their
dispute. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed an
affidavit of the respondent No.2 dated 8th March, 2022, which is at
page 33 and 52 of the Petitions, respectively. To the said affidavits
are annexed the Consent Terms entered into between the petitioner
No.1 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 899 of 2020 and the respondent
No.2-Ayesha Shaikh and the Talaq granted by the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board. In the said affidavit the respondent No.2 has
given her no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid proceeding in

¶33

Rekha Patil 3/5

¶34

02+-WP-899-2020.odt

¶35

view of the amicable settlement between the parties and the Consent
Terms entered into between her and the petitioner No.1 in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 899 of 2020.

¶36

7The respondent No.2 is present in person. On being
questioned, she re-iterates what is stated by her in her affidavits. The
respondent No.2 has been identified by her Counsel. Learned
Counsel for the respondent No.2 has tendered a photocopy of the
Aadhar Card duly attested by her. The same is taken on record and
the original is verified by the learned APP.

¶37

8 Considering the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement

¶38

between the parties, the Consent Terms entered into between the
parties, the affidavits of the respondent No.2 and having regard to
the the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors.
vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2, there is no impediment in allowing the
petition.

¶39

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶40

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶41

Rekha Patil 4/5

¶42

02+-WP-899-2020.odt

¶43

9 The Petitions are accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing C.R.No. 38 of 2018, registered with the Kurar Police Station, Mumbai, as against the petitioners in both the Petitions, is quashed and set-aside.

¶44

10 Petitioner No.1 in Criminal Writ Petition No.899 of 2020 to directly deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Thousand) in the account of the respondent No.2 within eight weeks from today.

¶45

11 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

12 The above order is subject to costs being deposited in respondent No.2’s account, as stated aforesaid.

¶47

13 List on 13^th April, 2023, under the caption ‘for compliance’.

¶48

14 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶49

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶50

Rekha Patil 5/5

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler v. the 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

Shiva Ramanna Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shiva Ramanna Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Faisal Yasin Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Tausique Qurban Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Arif Y. Shamsi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.