1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2018
Petitioners : 1) Syed Firozuddin Syed Hamiduddin, aged about
39 years, Occ: service
2) Syed Hamiduddin son of Sayeeduddin, aged about
70 years, Occ: Retired
3) Syed Mumtaz w/o Syed Hameeduddin, aged
about 69 years, Occ: Household
All residents of 41, Farook Nagar, Teka, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1) State of Maharashtra, through the Police
Station Officer, Police Station, Pachpaoli, Nagpur
2) Shenaz Taji d/o Farhat Taji, aged about 35
years, Occ: service, resident of 103, Aman Symphony,
Ayyappa Nagar, Mankapur Ring Road, Nagpur
Shri R. S. Akbani, Advocate for petitioners
Shri Trupti Udeshi, APP for respondent no. 1
Shri A. M. Haque, Advocate for respondent no. 2
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2019 15/03/2019 23:24:35 :::
2
Coram : Sunil B. Shukre
Smt Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ
Dated : 13th March 2019
Oral Judgment (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J)
1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Petitioners no. 1 and 3 are absent. Petitioner no. 3 is
suffering from cancer and as informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, she has been taken to Bangalore by her son who is petitioner
no. 1 for consulting an oncologist there who has given appointment for
today. Petitioner no. 2, father of petitioner no. 1 and father-in-law of
respondent no. 2 is personally present before the Court. Respondent no.
2 is also personally present before the Court. They have been duly
identified by their respective counsel.
3. Parties personally present before the Court submit that there
has been amicable settlement in between them and as per the settlement
deed dated 3.4.2018 (page 11), Respondent no. 2 has agreed to
withdraw all the allegations made against her husband and in-laws and
accordingly has given her consent for quashing of the crime registered
against the petitioners vide crime no. 322/2016 for the offence
punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code at Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur. The dispute between the
parties is purely a private dispute and has no societal ramifications. In
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2019 15/03/2019 23:24:35 :::
3
such a case, settled law would require us to make interference by invoking
the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. If this is not done, any further
proceedings in the matter would be nothing but an exercise in futility and
would be an abuse of process of law.
4. In the result, petition is allowed. Crime no. 322/2016 for
the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur against the
petitioners and all other consequential actions are hereby quashed and
set aside including charge-sheet no. 18/2019 filed in the concerned Court.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
SMT PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2019 15/03/2019 23:24:35 :::
