Allowed

Arnab Karmakar Son of Arunkumar Karmakar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2023WP/2042/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and mother-in-law sought quashing of criminal proceedings via C.R. under pending Family Court divorce. Court noted existence of mutual consent terms conditioned on final divorce decree. Upon confirmation of divorce decree by Family Court and respondent's no-objection affidavit, petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); C.R. No. 77 of 2020 quashed.

Arnab Karmakar Son of Arunkumar Karmakar and Anr. Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

SLJ

¶2

5-WP-2042-2022.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2022

¶6

Arnab Karmakar Son of Arunkumar Karmakar
and Anr.

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Prithwiraj Chowdhary a/w Mr. Chiranjib Sinha i/by Vaish Associates for
the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Ajay Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶12

Mr. Amit Ghag for Respondent No.2.

¶13

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

¶14

DATE : 12^th APRIL 2023.

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

.By the present Petition, the Petitioners i.e. husband and mother-in-
law of Respondent No.2 have prayed for quashing of C.R. No.77 of 2020

¶17

dated 17.02.2020 registered with Wanwadi Police Sation, Pune under
Sections 498(A), 313, 323, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504 & 506(2) read

¶18

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by consent of Respondent No.2.

¶19

2.Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, in Anticipatory

¶20

Bail Application No.776 of 2021, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2

¶21

had filed ‘Consent Terms’ dated 24.11.2021. The said ‘Consent Terms’ were

¶22

taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification by the learned single

¶23

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2023.04.15 15:29:33 +0530

¶24

1/2

¶25

SLJ

¶26

5-WP-2042-2022.doc

¶27

Judge of this Court. That, the said fact has been recorded in Order dated
25.11.2021 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.776 of 2021. Paragraph
No.10 of the said ‘Consent Terms’ provides for quashing of present
proceedings after the final decree of divorce is passed by the Family Court.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, the Family Court, at
Pune has in fact passed final decree of divorce on 13.02.2023.

¶28

3.Mr. Ghag, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 tendered across the
bar an Affidavit dated 10.04.2023 of Respondent No.2 duly affirmed before
the Notary Public, at Pune. The signature of Respondent No.2 has been
duly identified by Advocate Ganesh M. Hiranwale. In Paragraph-5 of the
said Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has given her ‘no objection’ for
quashing of the present proceedings. The said Affidavit is taken on record.
Mr. Ghag submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has also signed Vakalatnama
in his favour.

¶29

4.In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
Clause (a).

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Arnab Karmakar Son of Arunkumar Karmakar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arnab Karmakar Son of Arunkumar Karmakar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Madan Patel and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmendra Murji Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadashiv @ Mehul Durgaprasad Pandey and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Popat Malave Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Farooq Ibrahim and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shahanawaz Jamshed Khan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.