Try out our : Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience.
19-wp-1303-21.odt
+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2021
Shakuntaladevi Dube and ors. …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another …Respondents
………
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b Mr. Kral Mehta for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
Mr. A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.2.
………
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 1 AUGUST 2022
P.C. :-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Considering the order to be passed in the Petition, the matter is
taken up for disposal forthwith.
3. By this Petition, the Petitioners prayed the following relief:
“B. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set
aside FIR bearing C.R. No. 102 of 2020 dated
15/02/2020 registered with Andheri Police Station for
offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 of IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the
interest of justice.”
MJ Jadhav 1 / 4
::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2022 04/08/2022 10:26:52 :::
19-wp-1303-21.odt
4. The reason given for quashing is the consent given by
Respondent No. 2 Complainant. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 jointly prayed that the FIR be
quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel
rely upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and anr1.
5. The Respondent No. 2 filed the FIR under Section 498A, 406,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent No. 2 alleged that she was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty and demands of dowry.
6. The Respondent No. 2 through the Advocate has filed an
affidavit, wherein the Respondent No. 2 has stated as under:
“2. I say that, since the matter has been amicably settled
beween me and the Petitioners, I am not dealing with
any of the allegations appearing in the Petition on merits
and as such, nothing shall be deemed to have been
admitted by me unless specifically admitted and the
things contrary be treated to have been denied by me in
all respect.
3. I say that, it is true that I was engaged with the
Petitioner No. 3 and thereafter, we were planning for the
marriage however, the marriage has never taken place
between us. I say that however, since after the marriage, I
was required to join the Petitioner No. 3 at U.S.A. before
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
MJ Jadhav 2 / 4
::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2022 04/08/2022 10:26:52 :::
19-wp-1303-21.odt
actual marriage is being performed under the vedic law,
it was decided that only for the completion of Visa
formalities, the marriage be registered though, infact, no
such marriage has ever taken place.
4. I say that, accordingly only for the said purpose, the
marriage certificate has been obtained from the
authorities concerned. I say that subsequently, due to the
personal reasons, we have decided not to get married
with each other and due to some misunderstanding
between us, the present Complaint came to be lodged.
5. I say that, subsequent thereto, I am already married
to another person and as such, I am residing with my
present husband happily and as such, I do not intend to
continue with the complaint which has been filed only
because of the misunderstanding between the parties.
6. I say that, accordingly, I am filing my present
Affidavit seeking indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to
pass appropriate order that this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to quash the FIR No. 102 of 2020 dated 15 February
2020 registered under the provisions of Section 498A,
406, 506 of IPC read with the provisions of Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, in the interest of justice.
7. I say that, if the FIR in question is quashed, no
prejudice would be caused to any of the party and on the
other hand, if the same continued, it will cause trouble in
my married life in all respect.
8. I say that, accordingly, I am filing the present
Affidavit of my own sweet will and appropriate orders be
passed, thereby granting the subject FIR and allow the
present Writ Petition No. 1303 of 2021 in the interest of
justice.”
7. Though, we take note of the above mentioned contentions of
Respondent No. 2, more particularly, the consent of Respondent No.
MJ Jadhav 3 / 4
::: Uploaded on – 03/08/2022 04/08/2022 10:26:52 :::
19-wp-1303-21.odt
2 for quashing the FIR, we are not deemed to have opined on the
factum whether marriage has taken place or otherwise. The dispute
raised in the FIR does not have large scale implications on the society.
In light of the consent given by Respondent No. 2 it will be a needless
harassment to the parties and it is not likely to result in conviction.
8. Accordingly, the case is made out for quashing the FIR.
9. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B) as above.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )MJ Jadhav 4 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2022 04/08/2022 10:26:52 :::