Allowed

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Sayad v. the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer

Bombay HC25 Sept 2024APL/1386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application for FIR No.291/2024 (Sections 498-A, 500, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC) filed by husband and mother-in-law after matrimonial settlement and customary divorce. Informant confirmed no objection; court quashed the FIR against applicants.

What did the court decide?

FIR Crime No.291/2024, P.S. Gittikhadan, Nagpur quashed against applicants only.

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Sayad vs the State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:10922-DB

¶2

1 apl.1386.24-J.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1386 OF 2024

¶5

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Ali Sayed, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Private, (Husband).

¶6

Husna Ara Mir Asif Ali Sayed, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, Both R/o. 3366/B, Patve Galli, Chopda Jijalgao, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ... APPLICANTS (Mother-in-Law)

¶7

...VERSUS...

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur.

¶9

Saleha Tousif Ali Sayed, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Flat No.20-B, Koar Apartment, Prashant Nagar, Nagpur. (Or. Informant)

¶10

...NON-APPLICANTS

¶11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. B. Dafle, Advocate for Applicants. Ms K. H. Bhodge, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State. Mr. R. S. Kale, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.

¶12

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND

¶13

MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- 27.09.2024

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.):-

¶15

Heard.

¶16

ADMIT. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of

¶17

learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

2 apl.1386.24-J.odt

¶19

This is an application seeking to quash First Information Report vide Crime No.291/2024 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 500, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on account of settlement.

¶20

The couple was married in the year 2021 but within short time due to temperamental differences, they started to reside separately. The informant has lodged report alleging matrimonial cruelty. Both are young having no issue, hence, they decided to sever the matrimonial ties in permanency. Accordingly, they have obtained customary divorce and as a part of a settlement wife has also agreed to withdraw the criminal prosecution.

¶21

The informant has filed a reply stating about settlement, divorce and her no objection to go on with the prosecution. The informant is present before us, who is identified by her Counsel. The informant has reiterated the contents of the reply by stating her non-inclination. She has also stated that she has waived her right of maintenance since she is Medical Practitioner.

¶22

It is a matrimonial dispute, which cannot be termed as heinous or anti-social. The parties as per their choice sever the matrimonial ties and thus, in above circumstances, continuation of prosecution amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶23

3 apl.1386.24-J.odt

¶24

In view of the above, the application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report vide Crime No.291/2024 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 500, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicants only.

¶25

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶26

RGurnule

¶27

Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2024 12:06:05

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Sayad v. the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Tousif Ali Mir Asif Sayad v. the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Geetabai Wd/O Dadarao Vaidhya Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary

Prafulla Pandurang Shivankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Chichgarth Tah Deori Dist Gondia

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Wardha Vs Smt. Sanjeevani Sharadchandra Upadhye and Others

Gajanan Kashinath Kamble vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Home Dep.(Special) Mumbai and Another

Ashok S/O Panjumal Chelani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Home Dep. (Spl). and 2 Others

Prakash Sahebrao Kolhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O.,Ps Mankapur, Dist. Nagpur