Allowed

Mohit Mangesh Mhate v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 May 2024WP/1742/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498A and 354(A) IPC. The quashing was granted due to an amicable settlement between the parties and the explicit consent of the informant, Respondent No. 2.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of CC No. 880/PW/2022 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai.

Mohit Mangesh Mhate vs State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

sns 13--wp-1742-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1742 OF 2024

¶5

Mohit Mangesh Mhatre & Ors. …..Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶8

Ms. Vaishali D. Padale a/w Swati Pokale, for Petitioners. Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Sapana Sawant, for Respondent No.2. PSI R. R. Ghadigaonkar attached to Dadar P. Stn. present.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 13^th JUNE, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Petitioners, i.e., husband, mother in law and brother in law of

¶12

the Respondent No. 2 have filed the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), for quashing of CC No. 880/PW/2022, pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No. 21 of 2022 dated 17^th January 2022 registered with Dadar Police Station under Sections 498A and 354(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with consent of the Respondent No. 2, the informant.

¶13

Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, Petitioners

¶14

1/2

¶15

sns 13--wp-1742-2024.doc

¶16

and the Respondent No. 2 have settled and resolved their disputes and differences amicably and the Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 have executed Consent Terms dated 2^nd September 2023 in cases bearing no. 47/DV/2022 and A-2049 of 2022 before the Family Court No. 4 at Bandra, Mumbai. That, as per the Consent Terms, the Respondent No. 2 has agreed to give consent for quashing of the case in question. She submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has filed an Affidavit dated 24^th January 2024 in the present petition to that effect. She therefore prayed that, the said case may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

¶17

Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 conceded to

¶18

the fact of filing of Affidavit dated 24^th January 2024 by the Respondent No. 2 and the contents thereof.

¶19

3.1) Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 24^th January 2024 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶20

In view thereof, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶21

(a).

¶22

(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.06.19 10:01:39 +0530

¶24

2/2

Mohit Mangesh Mhate v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Mangesh Mhate 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rupesh Rajendra Agarwal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Malti Ramkrishna Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satishchand Anand vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Sham Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Qazir Kejriwal and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajit Prabhakar Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra