Allowed¶19

Hariram Sevaram Bhatla and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2025WP/1354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Gadkari & Patil JJ., 13 August 2025) allowed Writ Petition No. 1354 of 2024 under Article 226 and quashed criminal case C.C. No. 1096/PW/2022 (C.R. No. 32 of 2021, Antop Hill Police Station) against husband and in-laws for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC, on the basis of an amicable settlement (Consent Terms dated 14-07-2025) and the no-objection affidavit and personal consent of the complainant wife (Respondent No.2).

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (C): quashing of criminal case C.C. No. 1096/PW/2022 arising out of C.R. No. 32 of 2021 (Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 504 read with 34 IPC), with the consent of Respondent No.2. ¶19

Hariram Sevaram Bhatla and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

dtg 16-Wp-1354-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2024

¶5

Hariram Sevaram Bhatla & Ors.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mahesh Vaswani a/w Ms. Shreya Tiwari, Ms. Shaista Hadi and Ms. Aliza Sheikh i/b Ms. Lakshita Fatnani for Petitioners. Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3-State. Mr. Aniket Tawde a/w Ms. Ieecha Pokale & Mr. Girish Hegde for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 13^th August 2025.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, father-in-law (Petitioner No.1), mother-in-law (Petitioner No.2), husband (Petitioner No.3) and brother-in-law (Petitioner No.4) of Respondent No.2, are seeking quashing of criminal case bearing C.C. No. 1096/PW/2022, pending on the file of learned 61^st Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 32 of 2021, dated 25^th January 2021, registered with Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the consent of Respondent No.2.

¶14

1/2

¶15

dtg 16-Wp-1354-2024.doc

¶16

Mr. Vaswani, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have now amicably settled their disputes and differences and have executed Consent Terms dated 14^th July 2025, which are annexed at page No.290 to 307 to the Petition. He submitted that, the Respondent No.2 is giving her consent for quashing of the crime in question. He therefore prayed that, said crime in question may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No.2.

¶17

Mr. Tawde, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that, Respondent No.2 has already filed on record her Affidavit of Consent dated 8^th August 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In para No.4 thereof, Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for quashing of the crime in question.

¶18

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 8^th August 2025 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in-question.

¶19

In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C).

¶20

2/2

Hariram Sevaram Bhatla and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram Sevaram Bhatla and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Bhushan Chandrakant Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aarif S/O Ayub Salar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ankur Rajkumar Joshi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Divyanshu Sarswat vs State of Maharashtra

Pranali Pramod Koli vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khalil @ Khalil Ahamad Murtuj Patel and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra