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 :::