Allowed¶20

Mohd Belal Uddin and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025WP/4496/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Article 226; matrimonial dispute settled by Consent Terms dated 07-08-2025; informant-wife's affidavit and no objection/unequivocal consent; Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; FIR No. 0527/2024 Ambad Police Station Nashik City; charge-sheet not filed; Bombay High Court Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 5306 and 4496 of 2024; compromise quashing; petitioners' undertaking to Consent Terms accepted.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0527 of 2024 registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik City quashed in terms of prayer clause (a) of both petitions; Petitioners' undertaking to adhere to the Consent Terms dated 7th August 2025 and not breach its covenants accepted and recorded. ¶20

Mohd Belal Uddin and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 0527 of 2024 registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik City under Sections 420, 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed, the informant (Respondent No.2) having consented following an amicable settlement between the parties.

¶12

Court's answer

Both writ petitions were allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., FIR No. 0527 of 2024 registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik City stands quashed, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The quashing rests on the amicable resolution between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, evidenced by Consent Terms dated 7th August 2025, and on Respondent No.2's (informant's) no objection and unequivocal consent to quash the crime, personally reiterated before the Court.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (A.S. Gadkari and R.S. Patil, JJ.; 8 August 2025) - Criminal Writ Petition No.5306 of 2024 (husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law) with Criminal Writ Petition No.4496 of 2024 (friend and close relatives of the husband), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought quashing of FIR No. 0527 of 2024 dated 9th August 2024, Ambad Police Station, Nashik City, under Sections 420, 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Respondent No.2 (the wife/informant) consenting. Investigation incomplete and charge-sheet not filed. Parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed Consent Terms dated 7th August 2025; Respondent No.2 tendered an Affidavit dated 8th August 2025 giving her no objection and unequivocal consent to quash the crime, and personally reiterated the same before the Court. Held: Petitions allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); FIR quashed; Petitioners' undertaking to abide by the Consent Terms and not breach its covenants accepted.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:35587-DB

¶2

DDR 10 WP 4496-2024.doc

¶3

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRIT PETITION NO. 5	ICATU JURIS 306	RE AT BOMBAY DICTION OF 2024
1.	Mohd Laique Alam	)
2.	Ms. Sumbul Bano	)
3.	Dr. Orus Erum	)
4.	Mrs. Sana Munawar	)
5.	Mr. Shibli Ghazali	)	..Petitioners
	Vs.
1.	The State of Maharashtra	)
2.	Mrs. Ayesha Mohd. Laique Alam	)	..Respondents
	WITH
	CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION	NO. 4	496 OF 2024
1.	Mohd Belal Uddin	)
2.	Ms. Nikhat Perween	)
3.	Mohd. Touheed Alam	)
4.	Mohd. Perwez Alam	)
5.	Ms. Jahan Ara Ansari	)
6.	Mr. Riyaz Ahmad Ansari	)
7.	Mohd. Ansar Alam	)
8.	Mr. Shane Alam	)
9.	Mohd. Arshad Jamal	)	..Petitioners
	Vs.
1.	The State of Maharashtra	)
2.	Mrs. Ayesha Mohd. Laique Alam	)	..Respondents

¶4

Mr. V. S. Kulkarni a/w.Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari for Petitioners in both Petitions. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Amin Solkar a/w. Mr. Parvez Sanadi for Respondent No.2.

¶5

1/3

¶6

DDR 10 WP 4496-2024.doc

¶7

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

¶8

DATE : 8^th AUGUST, 2025.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5306 of 2024 are husband (Petitioner No.1); mother-in-law (Petitioner No.2), sisters-in-law (Petitioner Nos.3 and 4) and husband of the Petitioner No.4 and brother-in-law of the Respondent No.2 (Petitioner No.5).

¶11

1.1) Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4496 of 2024 are the friend of the husband of the Respondent No.2 (Petitioner No.1) and the close relatives of the husband of the Respondent No.2 (Petitioner Nos.2 to 9).

¶12

Petitioners have filed these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No. 0527 of 2024, dated 9^th August 2024, registered with Ambad Police Station, Nashik City, under Sections 420, 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of the Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶13

2.1) Mr. Solkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that, till date, the investigation of the said crime is not completed and the charge-sheet is not filed.

¶14

2.2) Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, conceded to the said fact.

¶15

Mr. Solkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2,

¶16

2/3

¶17

DDR 10 WP 4496-2024.doc

¶18

tendered across the Bar her Affidavit dated 8^th August 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their matter and have entered into Consent Terms dated 7^th August 2025. The said Consent Terms are annexed to the Affidavit. In Paragraph No.4 therein, the Respondent No.2 has given her no objection and unequivocal consent to quash the crime in question.

¶19

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.

¶20

3.2) In view thereof, the Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of both the Petitions.

¶21

3.3) Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, on instructions submitted that, though by the present Order the crime in question against all the Petitioners is quashed, the Petitioners would adhere to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Consent Terms dated 7^th August 2025 and will not commit breach of any of the covenants therein. The statement is accepted.

¶22

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

¶23

3/3

¶24

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/08/2025 13:12:18

Mohd Belal Uddin and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Belal Uddin and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

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

Paresh Balia Bharwad vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zahaan Maqbool Chougle and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishwajeet Subhash Jhavar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Kashinath Padhi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Pirappa Sharanappa Kharate vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.