SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Syed Mehafooz Ali vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. … on 28 June, 2018

1 apl636.17.odt




Syed Meahfooz Ali,
Aged about 42 years,
Occ.Business, r/o. Ghutkala
Ward, Chandrapur. ………. APPLICANT

// VERSUS //

1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. City,

2. Smt. Ramiza w/o.Meahfooz
Ali, Aged about 40 years, Occ.
Pvt. R/o. C/o. Usman Khan
Pathan, Madina Masjid/
Madrsa, Tukum Chandrapur,
Tah. and Distt. Chandrapur. ………. RESPONDENTS

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 01:09:56 :::
2 apl636.17.odt

Mr.M.N.Ali, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.J.Y.Ghurde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.


DATE : 28.6.2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.N.Deshmukh, J) :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent

of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Applicant as well as non-applicant no.2, who are

husband and wife respectively, are present in the Court and are

identified by their respective Counsels.

3. This application is for quashing of F.I.R. registered vide

Crime No.620 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498A

r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act by Police Station, City, Chandrapur. Along with the

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 01:09:56 :::
3 apl636.17.odt

applicant, his parents were also accused in the said crime against

whom F.I.R. is admittedly already quashed by order of this Court

passed in Criminal Application (APL) No. 299 of 2017, on duly

considering contents of F.I.R. Apart from said fact, from the

affidavit-in-reply of non-applicant no.2 and also as stated by the

applicant, the issue of matrimonial discord between them which had

arisen due to misunderstanding is resolved amicably. The non-

applicant makes a statement that she is willing to reside with the

applicant peacefully and therefore, as per her reply, she has no

objection for quashing of F.I.R., as do not want to prosecute the same

4. We, on going through the contents of report, find that

there is no material ingredient of any of the offences punishable

under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act made out against the applicant. In

that view of the matter and on relying on the law laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and

Others .vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426,

we find this to be a fit case where FIR can be quashed.

::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 01:09:56 :::

4 apl636.17.odt

5. In that view of the matter, application is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (1) of the Criminal Application with no orders

as to costs.



::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 01:09:56 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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