SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sufiyan Mohamad Irfan Khan And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 January, 2024

Bombay High Court

Sufiyan Mohamad Irfan Khan And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 January, 2024

Author: N. R. Borkar

Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai, N. R. Borkar

48 wp 2970-23.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2023

Mr. Sufiyan Mohamad Irfan Khan
Ors. ..Petitioners

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondents

Ms. Amrita Nair for the Petitioner present through V.C.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.
Mr. R.K.Agrawal for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Rais Patel, father of Respondent No.2 present in Court.
Petitioner and Respondent No.2 present through V.C.

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 10th JANUARY, 2024.

P.C.

1. Learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Agrawal, undertakes to file

Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.2. He states that the

Respondent no.2 is presently at Dubai. He states that he will

forward the Vakalatnama to the Respondent No.2. The Respondent

No.2 who has appeared through virtual mode has agreed to sign and

dispatch the vakalatnama in favour of her Counsel.

2. The petitioner seeks to quash Crime No. 48 of 2018 registered

at Nehru Nagar Police Station, and Chargesheet No.

SALGAONKAR 1 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 12/01/2024 13/01/2024 00:24:11 :::
48 wp 2970-23.doc

3400460/PW/2018 arising from the said FIR, and pending before

the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai for the

offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506, 323 r/w. 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged

by the Respondent No.2. The marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and

the Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.09.2016. The

Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 18.01.2018 alleging that her

husband and his family members had subjected her to cruelty.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2

state that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably. They

have entered into consent terms. Copy of the Consent Terms dated

5.7.2021 filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate is placed on

record. A perusal of the consent terms indicate that both the parties

have agreed to make an application for dissolution of the marriage

and to withdraw the cases filed against each other. It is stated that

the marriage has been dissolved. Copy of the Khulanama is placed

on record, at page 57A. It is stated that pursuant to the said

consent terms, Domestic Violence proceedings have been

SALGAONKAR 2 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 12/01/2024 13/01/2024 00:24:12 :::
48 wp 2970-23.doc

withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 further

states that the Petitioner No.1 has also withdrawn the Complaint

No. SCC 1953 of 2018 filed against the Respondent No.2 and her

parents and others.

5. The Respondent No.2 who has appeared by virtual mode is

identified by her Counsel, as well as by her father Mr. Rais Patel,

who is present before the Court. The Respondent No.2 confirms

that she has received the amount as mentioned in the Consent Terms

and that the matter is settled as per the consent terms filed before

the Metropolitan Magistrate. She reiterates that she does not wish

to proceed against the Petitioners and has no objection to quash the

FIR as well as the criminal proceedings. Learned Counsel for the

Respondent No.2 has also placed on record e-mail sent by the

Respondent No.2 conveying her no objection to quash the FIR.

6. Having gone through the records, we are of the considered

view that the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have settled

their matrimonial dispute amicably. The settlement is voluntary

and genuine. In view of the settlement of the dispute, and

considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.S.

SALGAONKAR 3 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 12/01/2024 13/01/2024 00:24:12 :::
48 wp 2970-23.doc

Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana. (2003) 4 SCC 675, Jitendra

Raghuvanshi Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi Ors (2013) 4 SCC

58, and Rangappa Javoor vs. State of karnataka 2023 Livelaw SC

74, in our considered view continuance of the proceedings would be

a futile exercise. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise power under

Article 226 of the Constitution, and to quash the FIR as well as the

Criminal proceedings.

7. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

. FIR No. 48 of 2018 registered at Nehru Nagar Police

Station Station and the Chargesheet No.3400460/PW/2018

dt.2nd May, 2018 pending on the file of Metropolitan

Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, stands quashed.

( N.R.BORKAR, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

SALGAONKAR 4 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 12/01/2024 13/01/2024 00:24:12 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2024 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