Allowed

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

Bombay HC27 Jun 2024WP/2152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition, the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC based on mutual consent divorce.RC.No. 819/PW/2017. The respondent wife consented to quash the case via affidavit and appearance. The court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case RC.No. 819/PW/2017 arising out of C.R. No. 13 of 2017 is quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

Abhijeet Babasaheb Mahajan and Ors. vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 25-wp-2152-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Abhijeet Babasaheb Mahajan & Ors. …..Petitioners Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Pravin Maruti Dabade for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinit A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Akash Ahire for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

Mr. Sunil Ramkar, P.S.I. (Pairavi), Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai present.

¶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 and brother-in-law

¶12

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 R.C.C. No. 819/PW/2017 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 60^th Court at Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C. R. No. 13 of 2017 registered with Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the consent of Respondent No. 2. 2) Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, the marriage of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by a Decree of Divorce by mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13-B of

¶13

1/2

¶14

Gitalaxmi 25-wp-2152-2024.doc

¶15

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That, as per the Consent Terms executed between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 herein, the Petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed by the learned Judge of Family Court No. 3 at Bandra, Mumbai by its Judgment and Order dated 14^th September 2021. That, in view of the Consent Terms filed in the said Marriage Petition, the Respondent No. 2 has agreed to give her consent to quash the present case. He therefore prayed that, the said case may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 tendered across the bar her Affidavit of today’s date duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has admitted the fact of Decree of Divorce by mutual consent and in paragraph no. 5 thereof, she has given her no objection for quashing of the crime in question.

¶17

3.1) Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit of today’s date and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶18

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 by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.07.08 18:49:24 +0530

¶22

2/2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijeet Babasaheb Mahajan 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

Similar cases

Pankaj Ashok Sharma and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravi Shankar Bhatkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunny Mahesh Doshi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mehboob Masqsood Ali Pathan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anoop Kurup and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shadab Sikandar Shaikh and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.