Allowed¶25

Sagar Bharat Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2025WP/3546/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/CR 0019 of 2025, Kandivali West Police Station, Mumbai; Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC; Article 226 Constitution of India; matrimonial dispute amicably settled; Consent Terms dated 12 June 2025 in M.J. Petition No. A-1391 of 2024, Family Court Bandra; wife-informant's consent affidavit dated 8 July 2025 and personal 'no objection' in Court; petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); Writ Petition 3546 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.; decided 9 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of CR No. 0019 of 2025 registered with Kandivali West Police Station, Mumbai, granted in terms of prayer clause (a). ¶25

Sagar Bharat Mehta and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

Osk 37-Wp-3546-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3546 OF 2025

¶5

Sagar Bharat Mehta & Ors.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Niranjan Mogre a/w. Mr. Mithil Inamdar for Petitioners. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Jay S. Patil for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Officer : Mr. Pravin Budhawant, P.S.I., Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai, present.

¶12

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

¶13

DATE : 9^th July 2025.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Husband (Petitioner No.1) and in-laws of Respondent No.2

¶16

(Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3) have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of CR No. 0019 of 2025, dated 7^th January 2025, registered with Kandivali West Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶17

Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appears for Respondent No.2 and submitted that, he will file his Vakalatnama during the course of the day.

¶18

1/2

¶19

Osk 37-Wp-3546-2025.doc

¶20

The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶21

Heard Mr. Mogre, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Ms. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. Perused entire record produced before us.

¶22

Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and differences amicably and have filed Consent Terms dated 12^th June 2025 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in M.J. Petition No. A-1391 of 2024. That, in furtherance of the terms and conditions of the said Consent Terms, present Petition is filed for quashing of the crime in question.

¶23

4.1) Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 tendered across the bar her Affidavit dated 8^th July 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. The fact of filing of Consent Terms dated 12^th June 2025 is admitted in it. In para No.7 thereof, the Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the crime in question.

¶24

4.2) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 8^th July 2025 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶25

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

¶26

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.07.16 10:38:39 +0530

¶27

( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. )

¶28

( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶29

OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN

¶30

2/2

Sagar Bharat Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Bharat Mehta 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

Similar cases

Kaluram Maruti Pawar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayshree Mahesh Kawade vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikram Ashok Apte vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunda Shrikant Pingale and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Babulal Malu and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.