Allowed

Shivkumar Ramesh Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2023WP/2842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and associated criminal proceedings under various IPC sections. The petitioners, the husband of the respondent, filed the petition seeking quashing based on an amicable settlement and consent terms wherein the parties mutually agreed to withdraw allegations and settle the dispute.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. C.R. 50 of 2018 and proceeding R.C.C. 2210 of 2018 were quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute.

Shivkumar Ramesh Jaiswal and Ors. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2842 OF 2022

¶4

`1. Shivkumar Ramesh Jaiswal` `]`
`2. Geeta Ramesh Jaiswal` `]`
`3. Ramesh Basantlal Jaiswal` `]`
`4. Raju Ramesh Jaiswal` `]`
`5. Priya Ramesh Jaiswal` `]`
`6. Archana Raju Jaiswal` `]`	`Petitioners`
`Vs.`
`1. The State of Maharashtra` `]`
`2. Isha Shivkumar Jaiswal` `]`	`Respondents`
`..…` `Mr. S.H. Singh, for Petitioners.`
`Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P. P, for Respondent`	`No.1-State.`

¶5

Mr. Satyam Dube, for Respondent No.2.

¶6

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

¶7

 DATE : 22nd February, 2023.

¶8

SHAILAJA Digitally signed bySHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2023.02.28 HALKUDE 10:36:54 +0530

¶9

1 of 6

¶10

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of
the parties and the petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned
A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State and Mr.
Dube, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent
No.2.

¶14

3.By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr. P.C”), the petitioners seek
quashing of the First Information Report (for short “F.I.R”)
registered vide C.R. No.50 of 2018 with the Mira Road Police
Station, Thane, for the alleged offences punishable under sections
498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short “I.P.C”) and consequently, the proceeding pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 8th Court, Thane being
R.C.C No.2210 of 2018. Quashing is sought on the premise, that
the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶15

2 of 6

¶16

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶17

4.Perused the papers. Petitioner No.1, is the husband of the
respondent No.2; petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law, petitioner
No.3, the father-in-law; petitioner No.4, the brother-in-law and
petitioner Nos.5 and 6, the sisters-in-law (petitioner No.6 is the
wife of petitioner No.4-brother-in-law of the respondent No.2)
respectively. It appears that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent
No.2 got married on 30th November, 2016 after which, the
respondent No.2 started residing in her matrimonial home. As
according to the respondent No.2, she was allegedly ill-treated and
harassed by the petitioners, she left her matrimonial home on 6th
August, 2017 and thereafter lodged the aforesaid F.I.R, as against
the petitioners alleging the aforesaid offences. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the case is presently
pending before the learned J.M.F.C, at Thane. It appears that the
Petitioner No.1 had filed Petition No.A-2287 of 2017 in the Family
Court at Bandra for judicial separation.

¶18

5.In the interregnum, during the pendency of the aforesaid
petition, the parties amicably settled their dispute and decided to
put a quietus to the same. Accordingly the parties i.e the
petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 entered into consent

¶19

3 of 6

¶20

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶21

terms. The said consent terms dated 18th May, 2022 are filed in
Petition No. A-457 of 2020 in the Family Court at Bandra,
Mumbai. As per the said consent terms, respondent No.2 is entitled
to receive a sum of Rs.22,00,000/-, by way of full and final
settlement by the petitioner No.1. It is also agreed that both the
parties would withdraw all the allegations made against each other.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has tendered a photo
copy of the consent terms entered into between the petitioner No.1
and the respondent No.2 as well as affidavit of the respondent
No.2 dated 24th June, 2022, duly notarized before the Notary. Both
are taken on record. To the said affidavit, is annexed a photo copy
of the Aadhar Card of the respondent No.2, duly attested by her as
well photo copy of the receipt dated 18th May, 2022 for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as well as photo copies of the demand drafts dated
5th May, 2022 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 15th June, 2022 for
a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- respectively, deposited by the petitioner
No.1 in the Family Court, Bandra.

¶22

6. Respondent No.2 is present in person. On being questioned,

¶23

she reiterates what is stated by her in her affidavit. Respondent
No.2 states that she had received her stridhan. Learned Counsel for

¶24

4 of 6

¶25

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶26

the respondent No.2 has identified the respondent No.2 and the
learned A.P.P has verified the original Aadhar Card of the
respondent No.2.

¶27

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have no objection if the respondent No.2 withdraws the amount deposited by the petitioner No.1 in the Family Court alongwith accrued interest.

¶28

8.Considering the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement
between the parties, the consent terms executed between them, the
affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having regard to the judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.1and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab & Anr.2, there is no impediment in allowing the petition.

¶29

9. The petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR, bearing
C.R. 50 of 2018 registered with the Mira Road Police Station,
District Thane and consequently, the proceeding pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 8th Court, Thane being R.C.C.

¶30

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶31

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶32

5 of 6

¶33

22-wp-2842-2022.doc

¶34

No.2210 of 2018, are quashed and set aside.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

¶38

 [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

¶39

6 of 6

Shivkumar Ramesh Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar Ramesh Jaiswal and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Rajaram Thakare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Jayram Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Suresh Ahire and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhishek Manik Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Manik Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.