Allowed

Abhay Ramjanam Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2024WP/3312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and in-laws sought quashing of a pending matrimonial cruelty case under IPC Sections 498(A) and others before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla. The complainant affirmed an amicable settlement and consented to quashing; the High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (A); criminal case quashed with informant's consent.

Abhay Ramjanam Singh and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi

¶2

Corrected-26-wp-3312-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3312 OF 2024

¶6

Mr. Abhay Ramjanam Singh & Ors. …..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Manoj Singh for the Petitioners. Smt. Anamika Malhotra, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sushil Upadhyay for Respondent No. 2

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 5^th AUGUST 2024.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Petitioners i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2 respectively, have filed present Petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of C.C. No. 2951/PW/2022 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51^st Court at Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C. R. No. 294 of 2021 dated 12^th May 2021 registered with Kurla Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 313, 498(A), 406, 504 & 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the consent of Respondent No. 2, the informant.

¶14

Mr. Sushil Upadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the

¶15

1/2 This Order is modified/corrected pursuant to the Speaking to Minutes of Order dated 20^th August 2024.

¶16

Gitalaxmi Corrected-26-wp-3312-2024.doc

¶17

Respondent No. 2 tendered across the bar her Affidavit of today’s date, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In paragraph no. 3 thereof, the Respondent No. 2 has admitted the fact of amicable settlement between the parties on mutually agreed terms. In paragraph no. 4 thereof, she has given her consent for quashing the said 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 of today’s date and her ‘no objection’ for quashing the said case pending against the Petitioners.

¶19

In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

¶20

clause (A).

¶21

Advocate Mr. Upadhyay undertakes to file his vakalatnama on record within a period of one week from today.

¶22

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

¶23

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.09.03 10:28:55 +0530

¶24

This Order is modified/corrected pursuant to the Speaking to Minutes of Order dated 20^th August 2024.

¶25

2/2

Abhay Ramjanam Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Ramjanam Singh 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

Manoj Tukaram Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Jayram Borate and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajendra Bhan Kamal Kumar Tanwar @ Gajendra Kamal Kumar Tanwar and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Bhimsen Agarwal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vicky Mahadev Thorat vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.