1 apl636.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.636 OF 2017
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,
Chandrapur.
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.
CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
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.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
::: Uploaded on – 03/07/2018 04/07/2018 01:09:56 :::