Allowed

Shaikh Hammad Shabbir Ahmed and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 May 2024WP/1863/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and in-laws sought quashing of a criminal case under Sections 498A, 324, 323, 504/34 IPC after amicable settlement with the complainant wife. The wife affirmed her settlement and no objection in an affidavit and before the court; the High Court allowed quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); C.C. No.68 of 2022 quashed.

Shaikh Hammad Shabbir Ahmed and Ors. vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

RVC 30 Wp-1863-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1863 OF 2024

¶5

Shaikh Hammad Shabbir Ahmed

¶6

Shaikh Shamshad Shabbir Ahmed

¶7

Shaikh Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Razzaque … Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

Mrs. Ifranaaz W/o. Hammad Shaikh

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

Mr. Mohd. Saeed Moghul for Petitioners. Smt. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Deepa Panicker a/w Mr. Azhar Shaikh for Respondent No.2. P.C. V.P. Salve, Chinchwad Police Station, Pune, present.

¶13

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶14

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 11^th September 2024.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Husband and in-laws of Respondent No.2 respectively have filed

¶17

present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing C.C. No.68 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune arising out of C.R. No.214 of 2021 registered with Chinchwad Police Station, Pune, under Sections 498A, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the I.P.C., with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶18

1. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, Petitioner

¶19

1/2

¶20

RVC 30 Wp-1863-2024.doc

¶21

No.1 and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and differences amicably and are now cohabiting together.

¶22

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that, Respondent No.2 has already filed on record her Affidavit dated 20^th March 2024, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, Respondent No.2 has admitted the fact of an amicable settlement between the parties and that, she is now residing with Petitioner No.1 and their children. That, she does not wish to proceed with the present case. In para No.8 thereof, she has given no objection for quashing of C.C. No.68 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune.

¶23

3.1) Respondent No.2 personally present in the Court and through her Advocate, reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 20^th March 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of C.C. No.68 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.09.20 10:36:48 +0530

¶27

2/2

Shaikh Hammad Shabbir Ahmed and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Hammad Shabbir Ahmed and Ors. v. the 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

Davesh Sahay Srivastava and Ors. vs Rusahli Verma and Anr.

Deepak Gopal Krishna Banga vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amar S/O. Vasant Torka and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

MD Asad MD Irshad Siddique vs State of Maharashtra

Lal Singh Maharaj Singh Thakur and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saniya Sayyadali Quadri vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.