Allowed¶23

Sharmila Maddhesiya and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025WP/3828/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sharmila Maddhesiya; Criminal Writ Petition 3828 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Article 226 Constitution of India; quashing of FIR; C.R. No.18 of 2024; Sakinaka Police Station Mumbai; C.C. No.1219/PW/2024; Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.66 Andheri; Sections 498-A 377 323 504 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code; dowry cruelty matrimonial dispute; quashing on consent of informant wife; affidavit free will no objection; Consent Terms Family Court Bandra Petition A 2706 of 2024; A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil; 15 July 2025; prayer clause (B); petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.C. No.1219/PW/2024, arising out of C.R. No.18 of 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, in terms of prayer clause (B), with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant. ¶23

Sharmila Maddhesiya and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of C.C. No.1219/PW/2024, arising out of C.R. No.18 of 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, in terms of prayer clause (B), with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case C.C. No.1219/PW/2024, arising out of C.R. No.18 of 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai on 4 January 2024 under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC against the Petitioners, should be quashed pursuant to the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶17

Court's answer

Respondent No.2, the informant, gave her consent to quash the said crime and stated that she has no grievance/complaint against the Petitioners (Para 7 of her Affidavit dated 15 July 2025), having affirmed the Affidavit on her own free will; the Court proceeded on the basis of this consent and her personal reiteration of 'No Objection'.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In view of the consent and no-objection of Respondent No.2, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Coram: A. S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.; decided 15 July 2025): Petitioners - the mother-in-law (Petitioner No.1), father-in-law (Petitioner No.2) and husband (Petitioner No.3) of Respondent No.2 - sought quashing, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, of C.C. No.1219/PW/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.66), Andheri, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.18 of 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai on 4 January 2024 under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following an amicable settlement evidenced by joint Consent Terms filed in Petition No. 'A' 2706 of 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, Respondent No.2 (the informant-wife) tendered an Affidavit dated 15 July 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public, giving her consent to quashing of the crime, stating she had no grievance/complaint against the Petitioners, and affirming it was made on her own free will without force, pressure, coercion, undue influence or inducement; she was personally present in Court and reiterated her 'No Objection' through her Advocate. In view thereof, the Court allowed the Petition in terms of prayer clause (B), i.e., quashing of the said crime with the consent of the informant.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:30448-DB

¶2

DDR 15. WP 3828-25.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3828 OF 2025

¶6

Sharmila Maddhesiya & Ors. ..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents _______________________________

¶9

Adv. Gayatri Gokhale a/w. Adv. Sneha Jethwa, Adv. Zainba Abdi for Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Adv. Ajinkya Palav for Respondent No.2.

¶12

Respondent No.2 present in person.

¶13

Mr. Raju Chavan, API, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai.

¶14

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

¶15

DATE : 15^th July, 2025.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

Petitioners i.e. mother-in-law (Petitioner No.1); father-in-law (Petitioner No.2) and husband (Petitioner No.3) of the Respondent No.2 have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of C.C. No.1219/PW/2024, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.66), Andheri, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.18 of 2024, registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, dated 4^th January 2024, under Sections 498-A, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of

¶18

1/2

¶19

DDR 15. WP 3828-25.doc

¶20

the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of the Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶21

Mr. Palav, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 tendered across the Bar her Affidavit dated 15^th July 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, the Petitioner No.3 and Respondent No.2 have jointly filed Consent Terms in Petition No. “A” 2706 of 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. That, in view of the said amicable settlement between the parties, the Respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing of the said crime. In Paragraph No.7 thereof, the Respondent No.2 has given her consent to quash the said crime and has stated that, she has no grievance/complaint against the Petitioners. It is further stated in Paragraph No. 9 that, she is filing present Affidavit on her own free will, without any force, pressure, coercion, undue influence or inducement from the Petitioners and/or their family members or any other person (s) of any manner whatsoever.

¶22

2.1) The Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 15^th July 2025 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶23

In view thereof, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶24

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

¶25

2/2

¶26

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/07/2025 19:25:10

Sharmila Maddhesiya and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Maddhesiya and Anr. 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

Shekhar Bandu Gholap vs State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Sr P I Shirur Police Station Pune

Sahebrao Sandipan Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Vasudev Wadhwa and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pritesh Ramdas Manjrekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Arvind Patel vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ogasidha S/O Bhimashankar Kewate and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.