SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhijit Prasad Pendharkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 July, 2019

909 wp 3377.17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3377 OF 2017
Abhijit Prasad Pendharkar and ors. …..Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and anr. …..Respondents

Ms. Ankita A. Phadke, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.
Mr. Prem Keshwani, advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 3rd JULY, 2019.

P. C. :

1. Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the

respective parties.

2. The petition is filed for quashing and setting-aside the FIR

bearing CR No.124 of 2017 registered with Bangurnagar Police Station,

at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Rest

of the petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.1. Matrimonial dispute

between the parties gave rise to filing of civil as well as criminal cases

and the subject FIR is one of them.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/4

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:47:39 :::
909 wp 3377.17.doc

4. Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably

with the intervention of their elders and well-wishers and have,

accordingly, filed consent terms for mutual consent divorce

before the 5th Family Court at Bandra in Petition No.A-2808 of

2018. In terms of the consent terms, the petitioner No.1 agreed to

pay to respondent No.2 an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Two Lakhs Only) towards permanent lumpsum

alimony/maintenance as full and final settlement for divorce.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount of

Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Only) is already

deposited by petitioner No.1 in Family Court in Petition No.A-2808

of 2018 and respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the same

once the subject FIR is quashed and decree of divorce by mutual

consent is obtained. A copy of the said consent terms is annexed

to the affidavit dated 11th April, 2019 filed by the respondent No.2.

In terms of the understanding arrived at between the parties, they

have now approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside

the subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.2 in her aforesaid

affidavit has reiterated whatever that has been stated above and in

paragraph 4, she has given her no objection for quashing and

setting-aside the subject FIR. Petitioner No.1 and respondent

No.2 are personally present before the Court. On specific query,

both of them stated that they will abide by the terms and conditions

Shubhada S Kadam 2/4

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:47:39 :::
909 wp 3377.17.doc

of the abovementioned consent terms. The statement is accepted

as an undertaking to this Court. In addition to this, the respondent

No.2 specifically stated that she has gone through the petition,

affidavit and the consent terms and has fully understood the

contents thereof and she has no objection if the subject FIR is

quashed and set-aside. She also stated that she is giving no

objection for quashing the subject FIR out of her own free will and

without there being any pressure or coercion.

5. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled

between the parties. Perusal of the complaint, makes it clear that the

allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances and

especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

B.S.Joshi versus State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386, we are of the

view that quashing of the subject FIR would be in the interest of

respondent No.2. Besides, no purpose would be served by keeping the

FIR alive except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already

overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the

subject FIR is required to be quashed and set-aside. The petition is,

accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed

as such.

Shubhada S Kadam 3/4

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:47:39 :::
909 wp 3377.17.doc

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Shubhada S Kadam 4/4

::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 10/07/2019 04:47:39 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation