High Court quashed an FIR registered for dowry harassment and allied offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, as parties had amicably settled the domestic dispute and sought divorce, rendering prosecution unnecessary.
FIR No. 307 of 2014 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2023.03.01 14:27:50 +0530
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2022
All residing at – 305, Snehal Tower, Jai Bhavani Mata Road, Amboli (West), Mumbai.
Both residing at – 19-B, Paradise Apartment Jai Bhavani Mata Road, Amboli (W), Mumbai
Page No. 1 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc
Versus
… Respondents
….
Mr Ratnadeep Meshram for the Petitioners.
Mrs M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr Ayyub Patel for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2023.
Page No. 2 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc
Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Page No. 3 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc 5. When this writ petition was placed before us, it was jointly stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 that the dispute, which was a purely domestic dispute, has been amicably settled. They submitted that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have decided to be separated, and as such, they agreed to part peacefully and gracefully by dissolving the marriage. Accordingly, a divorce petition has been filed in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, vide Petition No. 2520/2021. They tendered Consent Terms dated 17.2.2023. The parties assure that they will abide by the terms and conditions in the Consent Terms. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 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.2 has no objection to quashing the impugned FIR. Respondent No.2 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.2 has been identified by her Counsel. We are informed that in the impugned FIR, the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 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
Page No. 4 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.2
1 (2012)10 SCC 303.
2 (2014)6 SCC 466.
Page No. 5 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
Chitra Sonawane
wp-2802.22.doc 8. Considering these facts and circumstances, we see no difficulty in quashing the FIR. The petition is, accordingly, allowed, and the FIR No.307 of 2014 registered at Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.
[ R. N. LADDHA, J.] [ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
Page No. 6 of 6 ______________________________________________ 17 February 2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR in a matrimonial dispute can be quashed by consent upon amicable settlement between the parties.
Whether allowing the criminal prosecution to continue in a settled domestic dispute would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.Referred¶41
Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.<sup>1</sup>
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.Referred¶41
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.<sup>2</sup>
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Mahadev Jagkar
Parvati Mahadev Jagkar
Subhangi Mahadev Jagkar
Sarita Mahadev Jagkar
Neha Narayan Palshetkar
Aditya Narayan Palshetkar
Nitin W. Sambre
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
