Ketalkumar Mahendraprasad Kanojiya and Ors. vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Ketalkumar Mahendraprasad Kanojiya and Ors. vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): quashing of C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024 (arising out of C.R. No. 609 of 2023, Dindoshi Police Station) with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

Issue for consideration

Whether C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024, arising out of C.R. No. 609 of 2023 registered with Dindoshi Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 67th Court, Borivali, should be quashed at the instance of the husband and in-laws of Respondent No.2, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of Respondent No.2's affidavit and accepted no-objection, the Petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., the quashing of C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024 sought by the Petitioners was granted with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the statement made through Respondent No.2's learned Advocate that Respondent No.2, though not personally present, had given her authority to admit the contents of her affidavit dated 3rd July 2025 and to give her 'no objection' for quashing of the said crime; the statement was accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (A. S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.), Criminal Writ Petition No. 3218 of 2025, decided 6th August 2025: Allowed a petition under Article 226 filed by the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2 for quashing of C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024, pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 67th Court, Borivali at Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 609 of 2023 dated 30th August 2023 of Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2 (the informant/wife) had filed an affidavit dated 3rd July 2025, affirmed before a Notary Public, recording her decision to take divorce by mutual consent with Petitioner No.1 and her no objection to quashing; though absent from Court, her counsel stated she had authorised the no-objection. The Court accepted the statement and allowed the Petition in terms of prayer clause (a).

bipin prithiani 12-wp-3218.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3218 OF 2025

Ketalkumar Mahendraprasad Kanojiya & Ors. … Petitioners

V/s.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Digitally signed BIPINDHARMENDER by BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2025.08.18 15:43:03 +0530

Mr. A. K. Singh a/w Mr. Piyush A. Singh and Mr. K. A. Singh for Petitioners. Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

Ms. Sheetal R. Gupta for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 6^th AUGUST 2025

P.C.:-

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

filed by Husband, Father in law, Mother in law and Sisters in law of Respondent No.2, for quashing of C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024, pending on the

file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 67^th Court, Borivali at Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 609 of 2023 dated 30^th August 2023, registered with Dindoshi Police station, Mumbai, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

Ms. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that, Respondent No.2 has already filed on record her affidavit

1/2

bipin prithiani 12-wp-3218.25.doc

dated 3^rd July 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, Respondent No.2 has decided to take divorce by mutual consent with Petitioner No.1 and therefore she is not desirous to proceed with the aforesaid criminal crime. In paragraph 4 thereof, Respondent No.2

has stated that, she has no objection for quashing of C.C. No. 2090/PW/2024, pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 67^th Court, Borivali at Mumbai.

2.1) Though Respondent No.2 is not personally present in the Court, learned Advocate Ms. Gupta submitted that, Respondent No.2 has given her authority to admit the contents of her affidavit dated 3^rd July 2025 and to give her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the said crime. The statement is accepted.

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

clause (a).

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

2/2