Allowed¶4

Romit Hansraj Bhatia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2025APL/1845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC allowed on the consent of the complainant-wife; matrimonial dispute FIR under Ss.498-A, 323, 504, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC (C.R. No.266 of 2023, Chunabhatti Police Station; C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024, JMFC Court No.60, Kurla, Mumbai); consent premised on Consent Terms dated 12-08-2024 in Family Court, Bandra Petition No. A-745 of 2021; informant's affidavit dated 20-02-2025 and in-person 'No Objection'; applicants were the husband and father-in-law; no contested adjudication, no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (b): quashing of C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024 arising out of C.R. No.266 of 2023 (Chunabhatti Police Station), with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant. ¶4

Romit Hansraj Bhatia and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024 pending before the JMFC (Court No.60), Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.266 of 2023 (Chunabhatti Police Station) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC at the instance of the husband (Applicant No.1) and father-in-law (Applicant No.2), with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶2

Court's answer

In view of the consent of Respondent No.2 (the informant), as recorded in her Affidavit dated 20th February 2025 and reiterated by her personally in Court, the Court allowed the Application in terms of prayer clause (b), i.e., quashing of C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024 / C.R. No.266 of 2023.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) — Coram: A.S. Gadkari & Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.; decided 21st July 2025. Criminal Application No.1845 of 2024: Romit Hansraj Bhatia (husband, Applicant No.1) and Applicant No.2 (father-in-law of Respondent No.2) applied under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024 pending before the JMFC (Court No.60), Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.266 of 2023 registered with Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai on 11th July 2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC. Respondent No.2, the informant, tendered an Affidavit dated 20th February 2025 consenting to quashing in view of Consent Terms dated 12th August 2024 filed by her and Applicant No.1 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-745 of 2021; she was personally present and reiterated her 'No Objection'. Held: the Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), i.e., the crime/case stands quashed with the informant's consent.

¶1

DDR 69. APL 1845-24.doc

¶2

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHANVINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date:2025.07.30 11:35:51 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1845 OF 2024

¶6

Romit Hansraj Bhatia & Anr. ..Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶9

Ms. Turya Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhinav Mishra for Applicants. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Simran Kazi i/b. Mr. Rahil Siddiqui for Respondent No.2. Mr. Sudarshan Dhobale, PSI, Chunabhtti Police Station, Mumbai.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶11

RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 21^st July, 2025.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Ms. Kazi, learned Advocate appears for the Respondent No.2

¶15

and submitted that, she will file her Vakalatnama during the course of the day. The said statement is accepted.

¶16

Husband (Applicant No.1) and father-in-law (Applicant No.2) of the Respondent No.2, have filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of C.C. No.6000305/PW/2024, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.60), Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.266 of 2023, registered with Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai, dated 11^th July 2023,

¶17

1/2

¶18

DDR 69. APL 1845-24.doc

¶19

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of the Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶20

Ms. Kazi, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 tendered across the Bar her Affidavit dated 20^th February 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, the Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have filed Consent Terms dated 12^th August 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in Petition No. A-745 of 2021 and in view thereof, she is giving her consent for quashing of the said crime.

¶21

3.1) The Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 20^th February 2025 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶22

1. In view thereof, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶23

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶24

2/2

Romit Hansraj Bhatia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romit Hansraj Bhatia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dattatray Hanuman Aasbe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Shrikant Pingale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sayed Mustaq Amjad Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Kisan Kokane and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pranali Santosh Kanade vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Subramani Padaychi vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.