Allowed

Akshay Pramod Shinde and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2024WP/72/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay executed Criminal Writ Petition No. 72 of 2024 seeking quashing of an RCC registered under IPC sections 498A, 315, 323, and 504, read with section 34. The petition was allowed based on the consent of the complainant and respondents to settle the dispute amicably. The bench censured the careless drafting of the complainant's affidavit due to missing procedural details but i

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) and an RCC registered under sections 498A, 315, 323, and 504 IPC read with section 34 IPC was quashed based on the consent of the parties.

Akshay Pramod Shinde and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Osk 73-Wp-72-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 72 OF 2024

¶5

Akshay s/o. Pramod Shinde ] 2. Pramod s/o. Shankar Shinde ] 3. Prema w/o. Pramod Shinde ] 4. Shweta d/o. Pramod Shinde ] … Petitioners V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] 2. Ulhas s/o. Vishwanath Jadhav (deleted) ] 3. Komal w/o. Akshay Shinde ] … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sagar Wakale a/w. Mr. Ganesh Jadhav h/f. Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni for Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

¶8

Mr. Siddhesh Bane a/w. Mr. Saurabh Butala for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶10

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 30^th July 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of

¶13

Respondent No.3 respectively, have filed present Petition for quashing of R.C.C. No. 650 of 2023 pending on the file of 5^th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, arising out of C.R. No. 0207 of 2013 dated 30^th March 2023, registered with Kolshewadi Police Station, District Thane, under Sections 498A, 315, 323, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.3, the informant.

¶14

1/3

¶15

Osk 73-Wp-72-2024.doc

¶16

Learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 submitted that, the Respondent No.3 has filed an Affidavit dated 9^th July 2024 duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, the Respondent No.3 and Petitioner No.1 have filed ‘Consent Terms’ in M.P. No. 569 of 2023 pending on the file of Civil Judge (sic Senior Division) Kalyan and has settled their disputes and differences amicably. In para No.7 thereof, she has agreed to give consent to quash the said crime.

¶17

2.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 9^th July 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶18

1. In view thereof, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (C).

¶19

1. It pains us to note the following things :-

¶20

(i) The Affidavit dated 9^th July 2024 of Respondent No.3 is drafted by an Advocate and filed on record as per the procedure. In para No.4 thereof, the complete designation of the learned Judge or the Court is not mentioned and it is casually mentioned that, “That the parties have also filed consent terms in M.P. No. 569 of 2023 pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Kalyan … … ...”

¶21

(ii) In para No.7 thereof, the statement of Respondent No.3 is drafted as, “That I have agreed to give consent to quash subject FIR No. 207 of 2023 registered with Kolshewadi Police Station, Kalyan against the Petitioners.”

¶22

4.1) There is no pleadings to the effect that, the Respondent No.3 is

¶23

giving consent for quashing of the crime or she has no objection for quashing

¶24

2/3

¶25

Osk 73-Wp-72-2024.doc

¶26

of the crime, which according to us is the basic requirement.

¶27

4.2) According to us, the Affidavit so drafted and presented before this Court is with utmost casualness and without even perusing the documents given by the Respondent No.3 to her Advocate, who bestowed complete faith in her Advocate to do the needful as per the provisions of law and procedure prescribed therein.

¶28

4.3) The above two instances are quoted are illustrative and not complete in all senses.

¶29

However, at the request of Mr. Butala, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 we leave this issue at this stage.

¶30

4.4) However, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/upon the draftsman of the said Affidavit dated 9^th July 2024 for placing before this Court incomplete information regarding the trial Court proceedings and causing unnecessary inconvenience to this Court. The said cost be paid to Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.

¶31

4.5) List the Petition on board on 20^th August 2024 under the caption ‘For Reporting Compliance’.

¶32

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. )

¶33

( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶34

Digitally signed by OMKAR OMKAR SHIVAHAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN KUMBHAKARN Date: 2024.08.03 15:10:18 +0530

¶35

3/3

Akshay Pramod Shinde and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Pramod Shinde and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Vijay Suresh Raorane and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Parag S/O Balkrishna Bhave and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunit Arvind Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinayak Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Rajendra Bhosale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd Sakib Naseem Ansari and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.