Allowed

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

Bombay HC27 Jun 2024WP/2681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner husband, mother-in-law, and sisters-in-law due to an amicable settlement executed between the complaining wife and the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed in terms of the prayer clause (a) for quashing the R.C.C.

Anoop Kurup and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2681-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2024

¶5

Mr. Anoop Kurup & Ors.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Siddharth Pimpale i/b Pan India Legal Services LLP for the Petitioners. Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Preston Dias i/b Mr. Kailash R. Tiwari for the Respondent No. 2/First Informant.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 11^th JULY 2024

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Petitioners i.e. husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law

¶13

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. 798/2023 pending on the file of learned 4^th Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kalyan, arising out of C. R. No. 71 of 2023 dated 27^th January 2023 registered with Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 & 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that, the

¶15

1/2

¶16

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2681-2024.doc

¶17

Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 have resolved their disputes and differences amicably and have executed Deed of Settlement dated 2^nd December 2023. That, in pursuance of the said Deed of Settlement, the Respondent No. 2 has given her no objection for quashing of the present case. He submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 has filed an Affidavit dated 3^rd April 2024, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. That, the said Affidavit is already placed on record. In the said Affidavit, the Respondent No. 2 has admitted the fact of amicable settlement between the parties and in paragraph no. 5 thereof, she has given her consent to quash the present case against the Petitioners.

¶18

2.1) Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 3^rd April 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

¶20

clause (a).

¶21

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶22

(A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.07.18 20:10:55 +0530

¶24

2/2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kurup 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

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.

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

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