Allowed

Satish Suryakant Dhuri v. Vaibhavi Satish Dhuri and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2024APL/676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father sought quashing of FIR registered by daughter for offences under Sections 307 and 504 IPC arising from a drunken domestic quarrel. Complainant filed a consent affidavit supporting quashing; the Court quashed the FIR to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 5 April 2024 (No. 186/2024, Dadar Police Station) under Sections 307 and 504 IPC quashed; rule made absolute.

Satish Suryakant Dhuri vs Vaibhavi Satish Dhuri and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:25944-DB

¶2

rdg 3-apl-676-2024-J.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 676 Of 2024

¶6

Satish Suryakant Dhuri, Age: 63, Occ.: Retired, Residing at Room No.312, Sudarshan Building, 3^rd Floor, Gokhale Road, Mumbai No.400 028. …..Applicant

¶7

¶8

Miss.Vaibhavi Satish Dhuri, Residing at Room No.312, Sudarshan Building, 3^rd Floor, Gokhale Road, Mumbai – 400 028.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, (At the instance of Dadar Police Station) …..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Vishal Ingalwale, i/b. Mr. Ganesh Jadhav, for the Applicant. Mr. Geeta R. Chataule with Ms. Vandana Thosar, for Respondent No.1. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP, for the Respondent No.2-State. Mr. Sharad Jadhav, PI, Dadar Police Station is present.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶12

DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 28^th JUNE, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 3^rd JULY, 2024.

¶13

JUDGMENT :- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

¶14

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent

¶15

of parties, the Application is taken up for final hearing.

¶16

1.1) Mr. Vishal Ingawale represents the Applicant while Mr. V. N.

¶17

Sagare, learned APP appears for the State. Ms. Geeta Chataule appears for the Respondent No.1.

¶18

1/4

¶19

rdg 3-apl-676-2024-J.doc

¶20

The Applicant seeks quashing of F.I.R. dated 5^th April 2024 bearing No 186 of 2024 registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai for offenses punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) by the Respondent No.1 herein (Original Complainant).

¶21

The Applicant is the father of the Complainant. It is discerned from the F.I.R. that, the Petitioner was an alcoholic and in his drunken state abused the Complainant. In a fit of one such drunkenness and anger, the Petitioner hurt the complainant in her stomach with a kitchen knife. She ran outside her house and the neighbors called the police and for medical help. It is out of this domestic quarrel that the impugned F.I.R was filed.

¶22

It is stated that, considering the relationship between the parties being that of a parent and his ward and also the nature of the incident arising out of a domestic quarrel between the parties, they have decided to settle the matter amicably.

¶23

Complainant has filed a Consent Affidavit dated 6^th May 2024 attested before the Assistant Registrar of this Court. She specifically states in the Affidavit that, she was injured in her stomach hence, she required medical help and it is in these circumstances, the F.I.R. was registered. She had no intention to register any complaint against her father. Complainant has no objection to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶24

2/4

¶25

rdg 3-apl-676-2024-J.doc

¶26

Mr. Ingawale and Ms. Chataule submit that, the alleged offence in question although registered under Section 307 of the I.P.C., primarily arises out of a family dispute between a father and daughter and quashing of the impugned F.I.R. shall result in harmony between them, improving their relationship. The dispute has arisen out of a pure misunderstanding between family members and now they are desirous of settling the matter amicably. Mr. Ingawale places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr ,¹ to buttress the plea that, though it is a serious offence as the Petitioner attempted to seriously injure the complainant at the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injuries by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give a slant of offense under Section 307 of I.P.C. as well.

¶27

The complainant is present in the Court today. On instructions, Ms. Chataule, learned counsel for the complainant states that, in view of the settlement, complainant has no objection to quash the F.I.R. bearing No. 186 of 2024 registered with Dadar Police Station. Learned APP has also placed on record the Injury Certificate of the complainant. We have perused the same. Although the nature of injury recorded in the certificate indicates a

¶28

1 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶29

3/4

¶30

rdg 3-apl-676-2024-J.doc

¶31

stab injury with peritoneal breach, considering the statements in the consent Affidavit, relationship of the parties and the reason on account of which the quarrel took place resulting in the incident, we are inclined to quash the F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice.

¶32

FIR dated 5^th April 2024 bearing No 186 of 2024 registered with the Dadar Police Station, Mumbai for offenses punishable under Sections 307, 504 of the I.P.C. is hereby quashed. The Application is accordingly allowed.

¶33

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

4/4

¶35

Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/07/2024 15:59:01

Satish Suryakant Dhuri v. Vaibhavi Satish Dhuri and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Suryakant Dhuri v. Vaibhavi Satish Dhuri 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lallthazuali Zanghinglova and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Velaram Choudhary and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhijeet Babasaheb Mahajan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalpana Shahajirao Gawade and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pramod Hiraman Birari and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rushikesh Dasharat Gade vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.