Allowed

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2024WP/1584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and his family members sought quashing of a sessions case for offences including Sections 377 and 498-A IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The parties settled their differences through Consent Terms in a domestic violence case, and the informant personally affirmed her no objection in court. The High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Case No.524 of 2023 and C.R. No.459 of 2022 quashed with consent of Respondent No.2, in terms of prayer clause (a).

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

ssm 15-wp1584.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1584 OF 2024

¶5

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja & Ors.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶9

Adv. Husen Shaikh a/w. Adv. Rumman Shaikh for the Petitioners. Smt. Anamika Malhotra Addl. PP, for the Respondent-State. Adv. Mohd. Subhan Teli for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 26^th JULY, 2024.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Husband (Petitioner No.1), mother-in-law (Petitioner No.2),

¶13

brother-in-law (Petitioner No.3), wife of Petitioner No.3 (Petitioner No.4), sister-in-law (Petitioner No.5), husband of Petitioner No.5 (Petitioner No.6), sister-in-law (Petitioner No.7) and husband of Petitioner No.7 (Petitioner No.8) of Respondent No.2 respectively have filed present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Sessions Case No.524 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No.459 of 2022, registered with Dongri Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 377, 315, 498-A, 323, 109, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶14

1/2

¶15

ssm 15-wp1584.2024.doc

¶16

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, present crime is basically registered due to matrimonial discord between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. He further submitted that, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have now amicably settled their disputes and differences and have executed Consent Terms dated 15^th June, 2023 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon Court, at Mumbai in D.V. Case No.42 of 2022. That, in view of the covenants of the Consent Terms, the Respondent No.2 has agreed to give her consent for quashing of present case. He therefore prayed that, the said case may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No.2.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has already filed on record an Affidavit dated 30^th January, 2024, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is admitted therein that, the Respondent No.2 has executed Consent Terms dated 12^th June, 2023 in the said D.V. Case No.42 of 2022. In paragraph No.7 therein she has given her full consent and no objection for quashing of the said case.

¶18

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 30^th January, 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question. 4) In view thereof, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶19

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶20

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed SANJIV by SANJIVSHARNAPPA SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR MASHALKAR Date: 2024.08.13 17:56:55 +0530

¶22

2/2

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahadeo Narayan Nare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Hindurao Pisal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Himmatrao Anandrao Jadhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shital Dinesh Panchal vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harishbhai Dhanjibhai Parmar vs Union of India through CBI Acb Mumbai

Pravesh Kumar Sunilkumar Singh vs the State of Maharashtra