Allowed

Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023WP/355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal writ petition allowed the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 376, 313, 323, and 34 of the IPC. The court quashed the proceedings and case pending before the Sessions Judge due to the subsequent marriage between the accused and the complainant, noting no remaining dispute warrants criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed; C.R. No. 334 of 2021 registered with Wadala TT Police Station and case No. SC 925 of 2022 pending before Sessions Judge quashed and set aside.

Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar and Ors. Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2022

¶5

1. Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar
2. Thondikulam Narayan Sundar
3. Mrs. Rukmani Sundar
4. Mr. Sushil Thondikulam Narayan Sundar
5. Mr. Rama Krishnan Iyer .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ .. Respondents
.....

¶6

Mr. Seoul Shah for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the respondent – State
Ms. Neha Rane i/b Mr. Prasad Panchal for the respondent no.2

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : 9th FEBRUARY, 2023.
P.C.

¶9

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

1 of 6

¶11

Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2023.02.17 17:53:40 +0530

¶12

UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP

¶13

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶14

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 learned Counsel Ms. Rane waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶15

3.By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside
of the FIR registered vide C.R. No. 334 of 2021 with the Wadala
TT Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 313, 323, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Sessions
Judge, 39th Court, Mumbai, being Case No. SC 925 of 2022.
Quashing is sought on the premise, that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute.

¶16

4.Perused the papers. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the
respondent no.2; petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law; petitioner
no.3 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the
brother-in-law of the respondent No.2 respectively. According to

¶17

2 of 6

¶18

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶19

the respondent no.2 (original complainant), she was in a
relationship with the petitioner no.1 since November 2019. In her
complaint, the respondent no.2 has stated that the petitioner no.1
as well as his family members used to come to her residence and
that on the assurance and promise that the petitioner no.1 would
marry her, she had physical relations with the petitioner no.1. She
has further stated that even the petitioner no.1’s parents used to
come and stay at her residence and that they told her that they had
no issue if the petitioner no.1 married her.

¶20

5.According to the respondent no.2, in June 2020, the
petitioner no.1 under the influence of alcohol assaulted her, left the
house and went to his parent’s house i.e. to the petitioner nos. 2 to
3’ house at Pune. She has stated that the petitioner No.1, later
apologized to her. According to the respondent No.2, the
petitioner no.1 after promising marriage, had physical relations
with her. The respondent no.2 has also alleged that while she was
in relationship with the petitioner no.1, she underwent abortion,
which was without her consent. Pursuant thereto, the respondent
no.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR as against the petitioners alleging the
aforesaid offences. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the

¶21

3 of 6

¶22

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶23

said case and the case is presently pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, 39th Court, Mumbai.

¶24

6.From a perusal of the FIR, it appears that the parties were in a
live-in-relationship since 2019. According to the respondent no.2,
since the petitioner no.1 refused to marry her, she lodged the
aforesaid complaint. As far as Section 313 is concerned, we have
perused the statement of Dr. Gandhali Devrukhkar, who was
consulted by the respondent no.2. From a perusal of the Doctor’s
statement, it appears that the abortion was done with the consent of
the respondent no.2. In fact, the statement only shows that the
respondent no.2 told her that she did not want the child and that
she was one month pregnant, pursuant to which, she advised her
Sonography and prescribed some medicines. Thus, prima facie, no
offences either under Section 376 or under section 313 are made
out, as against the petitioners.

¶25

7. Be that as it may, in the interregnum, the petitioner no.1 aged 42 years and the respondent no.2, aged 33 years, got married on 13^th December, 2022 in Delhi.

¶26

4 of 6

¶27

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶28

8.Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 has tendered an
affidavit, dated 24.01.2023 of the respondent no.2 duly notarized
before the Notary. In the said affidavit, the respondent no.2 has
stated that the petitioner no.1 was a partner in her company; that
their friendship developed into a love affair and that they started
residing together. She has further stated that due to some
misunderstanding, there were quarrels between them, which led to
the registration of the aforesaid FIR. She has further stated that
she got married to the petitioner no.1 on 13th December 2022 at
the Arya Samaj Mandir Trust, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. To the said
affidavit, is annexed the marriage certificate issued by the Revenue
Department Government of NCT of Delhi. She has stated that she
has no allegations as against the petitioners and as such has no
objection to the quashing of the FIR, initiated at her behest against
the petitioners. To the said affidavit is also annexed a photocopy of
the Aadhar Card of the respondent no.2 duly attested by her. The
said affidavit is taken on record. The respondent no.2 is present in
person. On being questioned, she reiterates what is stated by her in
her affidavit. She states that she is happily married to the petitioner
no.1 and as such has no objection for quashing of the FIR.

¶29

5 of 6

¶30

904-355-2022-WP=.doc

¶31

9. Considering the nature of relationship between the parties, respondent no.2’s affidavit and the judgments of the Apex Court, there is no impediment in allowing the petition.

¶32

10.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and C.R. No. 334 of
2021 registered with the Wadala TT Police Station, Mumbai and
consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Sessions
Judge, 39th Court, Mumbai, being Case No. SC 925 of 2022, are
quashed and set aside.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

6 of 6

Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Thondikulam Narayan Sundar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Shaheen Sarfaraz Aaler Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

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