Hussain Akbarali Virji and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

904-WP-4808-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2024 Hussain Akbarali Virji And Ors. … Petitioners V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. Shamin a/w Murtuza Slatewala,for the Petitioners. Mr. Hussain Virji, Rukhsana Virji, Akbavali Virji and Anisha Kabani, Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, respectively, present in Court. Mr. Tejas Vijaykumar Dhotre, for the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, is present.

¶6

Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP for Respondent – State. PSI Vijay Patil, Byculla Police Station, is present.

¶7

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 13^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard Mr. Shamin Murtuza, learned Advocate for the

¶10

Petitioners, Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the Respondent -

¶11

State and Mr. Tejas Dhotre, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 08 of

¶13

2020 registered with Byculla Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 498A and 34 of the

Arjun

1

904-WP-4808-2024.doc

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet dated 2^nd July, 2020 registered as Case No. 838/PW/2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 25^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.

¶18

Petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by their Advocate Mr. S. Shamin. He tenders the Photostat copies of the Identity Cards of 4 Petitioners, which are taken on record and marked as “X-Colly” for identification.

¶19

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by her Advocate Mr. Tejas Dhotre. He tenders the Photostat copy of Identity Card of Respondent No.2, which is taken on record and marked as “X-1 ” for identification.

¶20

Learned Advocate Mr. S. Shamin and Mr. Tejas Dhotre submit that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved the matrimonial dispute and they have entered into consent terms on 22^nd September, 2025 before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay at Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2021. They submit that upon resolution of the said matrimonial dispute, Petitioner No. 1 (Husband) and Respondent No. 2 (Wife)

Arjun

2

904-WP-4808-2024.doc

have decided to part ways and obtain divorce in terms of law. They therefore submit that the criminal proceedings may not be continued. They state that the Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings, as such they request that the same be quashed.

¶25

Mr. Tejas Dhotre states that the Affidavit dated 13^th February, 2026 affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary S. N. Dhanage is placed on record. Same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

¶26

Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She reiterates her no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶27

Mr. P. Malshe, learned APP for the State submits that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 having now resolved the matrimonial dispute, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings, more so, in view of the statements

Arjun

3

904-WP-4808-2024.doc

made by the Respondent No. 2 in her Affidavit (X-2). He however submits that investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed on the basis of the complaint of Respondent No. 2 as such, he insists for payment of cost.

¶32

Mr. S. Shamin and Mr. Dhotre, on instructions from the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 submit that they would deposit appropriate cost.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of dispute, the matter being settled between the Applicants and the Respondent No.2, the statement of Respondent No. 2 in the Affidavit (X-2) and having regards to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr² and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat³ , there is no impediment in allowing this Writ Petition.

¶34

In view of the above, Writ Petition No. is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- as

¶35

1 2012 10 SCC 303

¶36

2 2014 6 SCC 466

¶37

3 2017 9 SCC 641

Arjun

4

904-WP-4808-2024.doc

condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 08 of 2020 registered with Byculla Police Station, Mumbai and the chargesheet registered as Case No. 838/PW/2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 25^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, are quashed. Criminal proceedings against the Petitioners are closed.

¶42

The Petitioners shall deposit cost of Rs. 25000/-in the below mentioned Account of the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund, Mumbai,within a period of two weeks from today.

¶43