Allowed

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2023WP/5322/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute, granting the petition due to an amicable settlement reached between the parties via consent terms filed with the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 243 of 2014 and criminal proceedings C.C. No. 767/PW/2016 were quashed and set aside.

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5322 OF 2017

¶4

1. Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri ] 2. Zubeda Anwar Kadri ] 3. Anwar Abdul Majid Kadri ] 4. Rahin Afroz Sayed ] Petitioners Vs.

¶5

1. State of Maharashtra ] 2. Arshima Faiz Ahmed Kadri ] d/o Sultan Siddique ] Respondents

¶6

Mr. Saeed A. Khan i/b H and M Legal Associates, for Petitioners.

¶7

Ms. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, for Respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

 DATE : 24th February, 2023.

¶11

ORDER: [Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

1 of 9

Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE HALKUDE Date: 2023.03.04 18:19:33 +0530

¶16

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶17

3.Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

4.Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1 -
State. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of
respondent No.2.

¶19

5.By this petition 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 bearing No.243 of 2014, registered with
Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai 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, a
proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai being C.C.
No.767/PW/2016. Quashing is sought on the premise that the
parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶20

6. Briefly stated, facts are as under.

¶21

2 of 9

¶22

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶23

7.Respondent No.2 got married with Petitioner No.1 on 23rd
April, 2015 as per Sunni Islamic rites. After marriage, respondent
No.2 cohabited at matrimonial home with all the petitioners. On
the very first night after marriage, petitioner No.1 demanded a four
wheeler or equivalent amount in lieu of the four wheeler from the
respondent No.2. When she expressed her inability to fulfill the
demand, she was abused as well as harassed physically and mentally
not only by the petitioner No.1 - her husband but also by her in-
laws. Demand of the petitioners could not be fulfilled owing to the
poverty of her parents.

¶24

8.The prosecution case further reveals that the respondent No.2
tried to convince petitioner No.1 and her in-laws, however, there
was no change in their behaviour. Even sisters of petitioner No.1
subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment.
Harassment and ill-treatment has gone to the extent that she was
restrained from co-habiting with the petitioner No.1. She was
driven out of the house and sent to her natal house by threatening
that unless her parents fulfill their demand of four wheeler or give
amount in lieu of the same, the petitioners would not allow her to
resume cohabitation. It was specifically alleged that on 2nd May,

¶25

3 of 9

¶26

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶27

2015, her mother-in-law asked her husband to leave her at her
parents house and threatened her that if she come back, she would
pour kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. As such,
respondent No.2 was driven out of house. Accordingly, an F.I.R
came to be lodged as against the petitioners, as above.

¶28

9. The parties have now amicably settled their dispute. They
have tendered consent terms before the Metropolitan Magistrates
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. A photostat copy of the
said consent terms is 'Exhibit B'. For ease reference, the said consent
terms are reproduced below;

4 of 9

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

5 of 9

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

6 of 9

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed affidavit
of the respondent No.2 dated 11th January, 2023 duly affirmed

¶36

7 of 9

¶37

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶38

before the Assistant Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay,
in the Registry on 17th February, 2023. In her affidavit, she has
stated that conflicts arose between her and the petitioners due to
some misunderstanding. Due to intervention of mediators and
relatives, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their
dispute and filed consent terms in C.C. No.149/DV/2015. She has
no objection to quashing the F.I.R/proceedings initiated at her
behest against the petitioners, in view of the amicable settlement
between them.

¶39

11. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. On being
questioned, respondent No.2 reiterates what is stated by her in her
affidavit. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has tendered a
photostat copy of her Aadhar Card. The same is taken on record.
Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has identified her. Learned
A.P.P has verified the original Aadhar Card of the respondent No.2.

¶40

12.Considering the nature of the dispute, relations between the
parties, amicable settlement between them and consent terms
arrived at by them, affidavit of respondent No.2 and having regard
to the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in case of Gian

¶41

8 of 9

¶42

9-wp-5322-2017.doc

¶43

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another1 and Narinder Singh and

¶44

others Vs. State of Punjab and another2, there is no impediment in

¶45

allowing the petition.

¶46

13.The petition is accordingly allowed. The F.I.R bearing C.R.
No. 243 of 2015 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai,
as against the petitioners and consequently the proceeding pending
before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Railway Mobile Court,
Andheri, Mumbai being C.C. No.767/PW/2016, are quashed and
set aside.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶51

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶52

9 of 9

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. 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

Harvinder Singh Jogindersingh Vijan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mayur Prakash Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagjit Singh Vijan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajinkya Dattatray Sangitrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Balkrishna Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra