IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2014
Syed Shehzad Abbas Naqvi ors. … Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra ors. … Respondents
Mr. Mubin Solkar, i/b Ms. Khimya Bhatia, for the Petitioners.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.
Mr. Kevin Gala, i/b K. A. Sayed, for Respondent no.3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
1. Mr. Solkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners at
the outset seeks to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted.
Necessary amendments shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the
learned Counsel for Respondent no.3 and the learned APP for
3. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the
proceedings of the Criminal Case bearing No.2136 of 2016,
pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate 71 st Court,
Bandra, Mumbai. The said case arises out of the registration
of the FIR bearing No.740 of 2013 with Santacruz Police
Station, Mumbai, at the instance of Respondent no.3 for the
offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
4. The Petitioner no.1 and Respondent no.3 are husband
and wife. Petitioner no.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner
no.1 and in-laws of Respondent no.3. Matrimonial disputes
between the parties gave rise to civil as well as criminal
proceedings. Said case is one of them.
5. Pending trial as well as pending this petition, parties
have settled their dispute amicably and have filed consent
terms dated 27th September, 2018.
6. In pursuant of the understanding arrived between the
parties, they have approached this Court for quashing the
proceedings arises out of the subject crime by consent.
Respondent no.3 accordingly filed her Affidavit dated 27 th
September, 2018. Copy of the consent terms referred above is
annexed to the said petition. The consent terms are signed by
Petitioner no.1 and Respondent no.3. Both parties, Petitioner
no.1 and Respondent no.3, who are present in the Court
make a solemn statement before this Court that they would
abide by the terms of the consent terms. This statement is
accepted as undertaking to this Court.
7. On reading paragraphs 1 and 6 of the consent terms
make it clear that Respondent no.3 has no objection to quash
the proceedings of the subject criminal case. On specific
query, Respondent no.3 states that she has gone through the
consent terms and understood the contents thereof. She also
states that since dispute is settled amicably, she has no
objection for quashing the said criminal case. In the light of
this statement, we take the consent terms on record and
marked ‘X’ for identification.
8. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties. Perusal of the complaint, makes
it clear that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In
these circumstances and especially in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi vs. State
of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386, we are of the
view that quashing of Criminal Case No.2136 of 2016 would
be in the interest of Respondent no.3. Besides, no purpose
would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending
except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already
overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests
of justice, the subject Criminal Case No.2136 of 2016 is
required to be quashed. The petition is, accordingly, made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of as
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Santosh by Santosh