1/4 (5)WP-5243-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5243 OF 2017

Nimesh Balu Parmar ors .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Anr .. Respondents

…
Mr. T.V.Dhotre for the petitioners.
Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.
Ms.Sumangala Bivadar respondent no.2 present.

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

DATED : 4th OCTOBER 2018

P.C:-

1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned APP appearing for the

State.

2 The present 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 the proceedings of

Tilak
2/4 (5)WP-5243-17.doc

the criminal case bearing No.PW/436/2017 pending on the file of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla. The said crime

arises out of registration of FIR No.249/2016 registered with

Matunga Police Station, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 r/w read

with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3 The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are husband

and wife. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner no.1

and in-laws of respondent no.2. 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, have settled

their dispute amicably, and in pursuance of an understanding

arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing

and setting-aside the subject FIR by filing consent terms dated 9 th

August 2018 in M.J. Petition No.A-1000 of 2017 pending before the

Family Court at Bandra. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit

dated 4th October 2018. Copy of the consent terms between the

parties filed before the Family Court is annexed to this affidavit. In

Tilak
3/4 (5)WP-5243-17.doc

paragraph no.6, respondent no.2 has stated that marital dispute is

settled amicably and therefore, she does not wish to prosecute the

criminal case. The parties, especially the respondent no.2 are

present before the Court.

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 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

Tilak
4/4 (5)WP-5243-17.doc

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 (a) and is disposed of as such.

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
Manali Manali
Prasanna Tilak
Prasanna Date:
Tilak 2018.10.08
11:16:46
+0530

Tilak