Allowed

Jayesh Harilal Soni and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 May 2024WP/1789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and his family sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of amicable settlement through Consent Terms before the Family Court at Bandra. Respondent No. 2, personally present, gave her no objection by affidavit. The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

What the court decided

AI extract

Jayesh Harilal Soni and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 22-wp-1789-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Jayesh Harilal Soni & Ors.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Rishiraj Gohil for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Alok Singh i/b A. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 27^th JUNE 2024

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Petitioners i.e. husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-

¶12

law and brother-in-law respectively of Respondent No. 2 have filed present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of the First Information Report bearing No. 69 of 2022 dated 9^th February 2022 registered with Samtanagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 & 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the consent of Respondent No. 2, the Informant.

¶13

Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have executed the Consent Terms dated 15^th April 2024 in Petition No. A/1881/2021 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and settled their disputes and differences amicably. That, the

¶14

1/2

¶15

Gitalaxmi 22-wp-1789-2024.doc

¶16

Respondent No. 2 in paragraph no. 10(a) thereof, has undertaken to file her consent/Affidavit and other documents for quashing of the present crime before this Court. That, the Respondent No. 2 has given no objection for quashing of the crime in question. He submitted that, in view thereof, the crime in question may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 tenders across the bar her Affidavit dated 7^th May 2024, duly affirmed by a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, the Respondent No. 2 has admitted the amicable settlement between the parties herein and execution of Consent Terms dated 15^th April 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In paragraph no. 4 of the Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has admitted that, she has entered into compromise with the Petitioner No. 1 and has executed the Consent Terms on 15^th April 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In paragraph no. 6 thereof, the Respondent No. 2 has given her no objection for quashing of the crime in question.

¶18

3.1) Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 7^th May 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶19

In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶21

(A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶22

2/2

¶23

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.07.08 18:49:09 +0530

Jayesh Harilal Soni and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jayesh Harilal Soni and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Anant Worlikar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinayak Shantwan Shinde vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajit Prabhakar Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahid Umar Bhagad and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Mansuri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhiraj Ramkrishna Kothawale vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.