SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Somnath Sawhney And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 September, 2018

1/4 (25)wp-932-18.doc


Karan Somnath Sawhney ors .. Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra ors .. Respondents

None for the petitioners.

Ms.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.

Ms.Pooja Joshi for respondent no.2.

Ms.Swati Sawhney (Bhakri) is present.




1 The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is

the husband and the petitioner nos.2 to 5 are relatives of the

petitioner. The respondent no.2 is the wife and the marriage

between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized

on 14th February 2014. On account of marital discord, several

proceedings came to be instituted by the parties. However, by

an order passed by this Court on 12th September 2017, the

2/4 (25)wp-932-18.doc

Court recorded that the Divorce Petition filed between the

parties would be converted into a petition by mutual consent.

Another term of settlement was that the husband would pay an

amount of Rs.Two lakhs to the respondent no.2 wife by way of

demand drafts. It was also agreed that the parties would

appear before the Family Court at Bandra to convert the said

Divorce Petition into a petition for Divorce by mutual consent.

It was also agreed that the respondent-husband would file a

petition seeking quashment of proceedings filed by wife under

section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, wherein she would give

her consent and support the application. It was ultimately

agreed that all the allegations made by the parties against each

other would stand withdrawn.

Accordingly, the present writ petition has been

instituted by the petitioner and his family members praying for

quashing of the charge under Section 498A r/w Section 34

pending before the Court of the JMFC, Vasai, Thane.

2 Today, none appears for the petitioner. However,

the respondent no.2 Mrs.Swati Karan Sawhney is present. She

3/4 (25)wp-932-18.doc

has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she has

received an amount of Rs.20 lakhs by way of demand drafts

and she has encashed the said amounts. She has also stated

that all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the consent

terms have been abided by the parties and a categorical

statement is made that she has no objection for quashing of the

proceedings instituted against the petitioner and his relatives.

In terms of the said affidavit and in light of the position of law

as set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of B. S. Joshi vs.

State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] where it is

held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the

FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though the said

offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the

Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are

contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein


“14. There is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in
the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy

4/4 (25)wp-932-18.doc

unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view
would be counter productive and would act against
interests of women and against the object for which
this provision was added. There is every likelihood
that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

For the reasons recorded above and in light of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceedings pending

on the file of the JMFC, 2nd Court, Vasai, Thane, vide RCC

No.1115 of 2017 are quashed by consent of the parties.

Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).


signed by
Manali Manali
Prasanna Tilak
Prasanna Date:
Tilak 2018.09.05


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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