Bombay High Court
Amit Hariprasad Sharma And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 2023
Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
31. APLST 3925-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 3925 OF 2023
1. Amit Hariprasad Sharma
2. Manju Hariprasad Sharma
3. Anoop Hariprasad Sharma
4. Rajkumar Krishanlal Sharma (died) ...Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sangeeta Amit Sharma ...Respondents
Mr. Hemant Dube i/b Mr. Rajesh Mishra, for the Applicants.
Mrs. P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Kavita Sonawane, API, SID, present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2023 P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Wakodikar 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 15:51:29 :::
31. APLST 3925-2023.doc
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. By this application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. 150 of 2019 registered with the MHB Police Station, Borivali (W), Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court, Borivali, being C.C.No. 923 of 2022. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
4. Perused the papers. The applicant No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2, Wakodikar 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 15:51:29 :::
31. APLST 3925-2023.doc respectively. We are informed that the 4th accused i.e. Rajkumar Krishanlal Sharma has expired. It appears that the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 got married on 22 nd February, 2008. Admittedly, the couple has no issues. As according to the respondent No.2, she was allegedly ill-treated and harassed by the applicants, she lodged the aforesaid FIR as against the applicants alleging the aforesaid offences. Apart from the said case, D.V. complaint is also filed by the respondent No.2 which has now been withdrawn pursuant to the amicable settlement between the parties. We are informed that Decree of Divorce has been granted to the parties in view of the Consent Terms.
5. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the parties amicably settled their dispute and filed Consent Terms in petition being Petition No. A-834 of 2018, pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. We are informed that pursuant to the said Consent Terms, the applicant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 and she has also received her stridhan. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has tendered an Wakodikar 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 15:51:29 :::
31. APLST 3925-2023.doc affidavit of the respondent No.2 dated 9 th January, 2023, duly notarized before the Notary. The same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that she has no objection to the quashing of the said case in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
6. The respondent No.2 is present in person. On questioning, she re-iterates what is stated by her in her affidavit. The respondent No.2 has been identified by her Counsel. The original Aadhar Card of the respondent No.2 is verified by the learned APP.
7. Considering the nature of dispute, the relations between the parties, the amicable settlement between them, the affidavit of the respondent No.2 and the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2, , there is no impediment in allowing the application.
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 Wakodikar 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 15:51:29 :::
31. APLST 3925-2023.doc
8. The application is accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing C.R. No. 150 of 2019 registered with the MHB Police Station, Borivali (W), Mumbai and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 68 th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, being C.C. No. 923 of 2022, are quashed and set-aside.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 to file his Vakalatnama, if not filed, on behalf of the said respondent, in the Registry, within two weeks of uploading of this order.
11. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. Wakodikar 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 15:51:29 :::