Bombay High Court
Salman Irshad Ahmed Khan And Ors vs The Sr. Police Inspector Ghatkopar ... on 6 July, 2021
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: S. S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
13-APL75-2021.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2021
Salman Irshad Ahmed Khan and ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The Sr. Police Inspector Ghatkopar
Police Station, Mumbai and ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Mateen Shaikh, for the Applicants.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the State/Respondent no.1.
Mr. Afroz Siddiqui, for respondent no.3.
Mrs. Farhana Khatoon Salman Khan, Respondent no.3 -
present in Court & interacted.
CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATED: 6th JULY, 2021
(Through V.C.)
JUDGMENT :PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnalll.
2. Bl virtue of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), the applicants have praled for quashment of Criminal Case No.543/PW/2020, arising out of CR No.429 of 2017 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, pending on the fle of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th Court, Vikhroli.
1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:30 :::
13-APL75-2021.DOC
3. The marriage of applicant no.1 Salman was solemnized with respondent no.3 Farhana no 2 nd Jull, 2016. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the parents and applicant no.4 is the sister of applicant no.1.
4. Respondent no.2 - frst informant lodged a report with Oshiwara Police Station with the allegation that after about a month of the marriage the applicants started to harass and ill- treat respondent no.3. At the instigation of the applicant nos.2 and 3, applicant no.1 made unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- and subjected the respondent no.2 to crueltl in order to coerce her to meet the said unlawful demand. Applicant no.1 assaulted respondent no.2 and once also subjected respondent no.2 to forcible unnatural sexual intercourse, without her consent. Thus crime was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code"). Post completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to lodged against the applicants for the aforesaid offences.
5. The applicants aver that, in the intervening period, at the instance of the elders and well-wishers, the parties have amicabll resolved the dispute. The marital bond between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is dissolved as respondent 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:30 ::: 13-APL75-2021.DOC no.2 obtained 'Khula' (divorce) as evidenced bl the 'Khulanama' executed on 23rd November, 2020. Hence this application.
6. Respondent no.2 Farhana has fled an affdavit. In the affdavit, respondent no.2 has made the following affrmations:
"2. I sal and submit that due to the interference of elderll famill members of both side to resolve and settle the dispute between us and it was amicabll resolve all the dispute. I am in receipt amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs onll) as full and fnal settlement.
4. I sal that I have no objection for quashing ml complaint/FIR vide CR No.429 of 2017 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, pending in 49th Metropolitan Magistrate Court Vikhroli vide C.C. No.543/PW/2020.
6. I am executing this present Affdavit with ml free own consent and without infuence and pressure of anl person to support the Criminal Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure fled bl Mr. Salman Irshad Ahmed Khan and others for quashing proceeding of C.R.No.429/2017 registered with the Ghatkopar Police Station Mumbai pending in 49th Metropolitan Court Vikhroli vide C.C.No.543/PW/ 2020."
7. Copl of the Deed of 'Khulanama' is annexed to the application. It indicates that the marriage is dissolved bl executing the said 'Khulanama' on 23rd November, 2020.
8. Respondent no.2 appeared before the Court. Respondent no.2 admitted the contents of the Affdavit fled before this Court. On being inquired, respondent no.2 categoricalll asserted that she has voluntarill settled the matrimonial dispute with the applicants. The martial bond is dissolved as 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:30 ::: 13-APL75-2021.DOC she has obtained Khula (divorce). She claimed to have received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. She specifcalll stated that there is no coercion or duress.
9. The material on record thus indicates that the parties have settled all the disputes, which arose out of marital discord. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have decided to burl the hatchet and moved in life. Thel have parted wals. In view of the settlement of the disputes, the possibilitl of the prosecution resulting in a conviction is extremell remote. The continuation of the prosecution, in the aforesaid circumstances, would be a futile exercise. In contrast, the continuation of the prosecution would put parties to greater hardship and mal constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. It is well recognized that the power to quash the prosecution, in the wake of settlement of the disputes between the parties, can be legitimatell exercised where the prosecution arises out of matrimonial proceedings. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab.1
11. In the case at hand, though the applicants, especialll applicant no.1, have been arraigned for the offence punishable 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.
4/5::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:30 :::
13-APL75-2021.DOC under Section 377 of the Penal Code, let the fact that all the offences allegedll arose out of matrimonial dispute cannot be lost sight of. It is a common knowledge that in the wake of the dispute allegations are made thick and fast. As the parties have resolved to put an end to all the disputes and even the marital bond between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is dissolved, we are persuaded allow the application. Hence, the following order:
: ORDER :
(i) The application stands allowed in terms of praler Clause (a).
(ii) CC No.543/PW/2020, arising out CR No. 429/2020 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, pending on the fle of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 49 th Court, Vikhroli, stands quashed.
12. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.] 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:30 :::