Allowed¶25

Jason John Nazareth and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2025APL/316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. on amicable matrimonial settlement and wife's sworn consent/'no objection'; Bombay HC Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025, decided 20.08.2025 (Gadkari & Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.); R.C.C. No. 57/2025, JMFC Mira-Bhayandar; F.I.R. No. 325/2024 dated 28.05.2024, Navghar Police Station; offences u/ss 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC; accused: husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law; Consent Terms dated 17.12.2024 in Family Court Petition No. A-2144/2023 (Bandra); Affidavit dated 18.06.2025 of Respondent No.2.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 (arising out of F.I.R. No. 325 of 2024, Navghar Police Station) granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and amended prayer clause (a-1). ¶25

Jason John Nazareth and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 (arising out of F.I.R. No. 325 of 2024, Navghar Police Station) granted in terms of prayer clause (a) and amended prayer clause (a-1).

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 (JMFC, Mira-Bhayandar), arising out of F.I.R. No. 325 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC against the husband and in-laws of Respondent No.2, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the amicable settlement between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 and her consent/no-objection for quashing.

¶18

Court's answer

Respondent No.2, personally present in Court and through her Advocate, reiterated the contents of her Affidavit dated 18 June 2025 and gave her 'no objection' for quashing of the crime in question; the Court recorded this stance.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and amended prayer clause (a-1), in view of the amicable settlement and Respondent No.2's consent for quashing.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (A.S. Gadkari & Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.) allowed a Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Mira-Bhayandar, arising out of F.I.R. No. 325 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 registered with Navghar Police Station (Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate) under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, filed by the wife (Respondent No.2, the informant) against her husband (Applicant No.1), father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. The spouses had amicably settled their disputes; Consent Terms dated 17.12.2024 stood filed in Petition No. A-2144 of 2023 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, wherein Respondent No.2 consented (paragraph 5) to quashing. Her Affidavit dated 18.06.2025 was tendered before the Court; she appeared personally and, through her Advocate, reiterated her 'no objection' to the crime. On that basis the Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and amended prayer clause (a-1). Leave to amend the pleadings/prayer clauses to incorporate the challenge to R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025 was granted the same day.

¶1

bipin prithiani 29-apl-316.25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2025

¶5

Jason John Nazareth & Ors. … Applicants

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prem Tanna for Applicants.

¶9

Mr. Ajay S. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2025.08.26 14:31:35 +0530

¶11

Mr. Mukta Thapar (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Afsar Ansari for Respondent No.2. Mr. Yogesh More, PSI, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai.

¶12

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 20^th AUGUST 2025

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

Leave to amend to incorporate challenge to R.C.C. No. 57 of 2025, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, MiraBhayandar, in the pleadings and prayer clauses, granted.

¶16

1.1) Amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶17

Petitioners i.e. Husband, Father in law, Mother in law and

¶18

Sisters in law of Respondent No.2, have filed this Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing of R.C.C. No.57 of 2025, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mira-Bhayandar, arising out of

¶19

F.I.R. No.325 of 2024 dated 28^th May 2024, registered with Navghar Police

¶20

1/2

¶21

bipin prithiani 29-apl-316.25.doc

¶22

Station, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, Police Commissionerate, under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶23

Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 tendered across the Bar her Affidavit dated 18^th June 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have amicably settled their disputes and Consent Terms dated 17^th December 2024 are filed in Petition No. A-2144 of 2023 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In paragraph 5 thereof, Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the present crime.

¶24

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate, she reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 18^th June 2025 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶25

In view thereof, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and amended prayer clause (a-1).

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

Jason John Nazareth and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jason John Nazareth and Ors. v. 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

Sahebrao Sandipan Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Novendu Nilmoni Sinha vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Laxman Shirishkar vs The State of Maharashtra

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

Amol Kashinath Borchate and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Pranali Pramod Koli vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.