SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Syed Shehzad Abbas Naqvi And And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 September, 2018

2-WP2346-14.doc

SSK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2014

Syed Shehzad Abbas Naqvi ors. … Petitioners
Versus
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.

P.C.:-

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

the State.

3. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the

1/4
2-WP2346-14.doc

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

2/4
2-WP2346-14.doc

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

3/4
2-WP2346-14.doc

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

such.

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Digitally signed
Santosh by Santosh
Subhash
Subhash Kulkarni
Date:
Kulkarni 2018.10.03
10:44:33 +0530

4/4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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