IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5243 OF 2017
Nimesh Balu Parmar ors .. Petitioners
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
1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned APP appearing for the
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
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
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
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
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.)