1/4 903 WP 1616-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1616 of 2019
Meera Bishnu Varun @ M.B. Varun
@ Varun Bishnunandan Gupta ors .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Anr .. Respondents
…
Mr. Shardul singh i/b Sushma Singh for the petitioners.
Mr. S.R.Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr.Roshan S. Tanna for respondent no.2.
CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATED : 28th MARCH 2019
P.C:-
1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned APP appearing for
the State.
2 The petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside FIR
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 30/03/2019 01:41:34 :::
2/4 903 WP 1616-19.doc
No.182 of 2018 registered with Meghwadi – Jogeshwari Police
Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 377 read with Section 34
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3 The petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2 are
husband and wife. Rest of the petitioners are relatives of
petitioner no.1. Marital dispute between the parties gave rise
to filing of several criminal as well as civil cases. The subject
matter of the present petition is one of them.
4 Pending investigation, the parties, however, with
intervention of the elders, have settled their dispute amicably,
and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them,
have filed consent terms before the Family Court at Bandra,
Mumbai. Copy of the Consent Terms is annexed at Exhibit-B
page 15. Pursuant to the understanding arrived between the
parties, they have approached this Court for quashing the
subject FIR. We have perused the consent terms and clause (1)
of the Consent Terms states that parties are ready to take
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 30/03/2019 01:41:34 :::
3/4 903 WP 1616-19.doc
Divorce by Mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special
Marriage Act. Respondent No.2 has also agreed for quashing of
the subject FIR. Respondent no.2 has also filed separate
affidavit dated 26th March 2019. In paragraph no.9 she has
given no objection.
5 The respondent no.2 is specifically asked that
whether she has gone through the affidavit and has
understood the contents thereof. She answers in the positive
and states that she has no objection if the subject FIR is
quashed and set-aside. She has further confirmed that that she
is giving no objection for quashing the said FIR out of free will
and without there being any pressure or coercion.
6 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
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 30/03/2019 01:41:34 :::
4/4 903 WP 1616-19.doc
quashing of the FIR would be in the interest of respondent
No.2. Besides, no purpose would be served by keeping the
criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal
Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the
matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required
to be quashed. The application is, accordingly, made absolute
in terms of prayer clause (b) and is disposed of as such.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Tilak
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 30/03/2019 01:41:34 :::