1

13-apl-812-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2021

Mohammed Adil Khan & Ors.

..Applicants.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents

__________

Mr. S. A. Naqvi for Applicants.

Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

Ms. Nikita Prakash Sacchan for Respondent No.2.

__________

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND

SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 4 DECEMBER 2021

P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Taken for disposal

by consent.

2.

This Application is filed for quashing of C.R.No. 232 of

2019 registered at Naya Nagar police station, Miraroad, District

Thane, pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the Respondent No.2 against

the Applicants under sections 498A, 406, 307, 323, 504 and 506(2)

r/w. 34 of the IPC.

3.

Respondent No.2 is the wife of Applicant No.1.

1 of 4

Gokhale

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Digitally

signed by

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Date:

2021.12.09

10:26:54

+0530

2

13-apl-812-21

Applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law of the Respondent No.2,

Applicant No.3 is sister-in-law and Applicant No.4 is brother-in-law

of the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.5 was father-in-law of

the Respondent No.2, who has now expired. The Application is filed

on the basis that, Respondent No.2 and the Applicants have settled

their dispute and consent terms have been filed in the court of

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Kurla and the Respondent No.2 has

filed an affidavit in this court that the Respondent No.2 has no

objection for quashing of the F.I.R.

4.

The learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned

counsel for the Respondent No.2 jointly request that the F.I.R. be

quashed by consent. In this context, we have perused the F.I.R. In the

F.I.R. the Respondent No.2 has stated that, she was subjected to

mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry. There is a reference

in the F.I.R. about the Applicant No.1 was trying to put pillow on her

face and sprinkling kerosene. The learned counsel for the Applicants

submitted that these are the general assertions and there is nothing in

the investigation to support that and this by itself would justify the

offence under section 307 of IPC. The learned counsel for the

Respondent No.2 has also accepted this position.

5.

As regard part of sprinkling of kerosene and pillow is

concerned, it is stated in most vague and general terms. This is

relevant in the context the stand taken by Respondent No.2 before

2 of 4

3

13-apl-812-21

us. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel

for the Applicants that, so far as, Section 307 of IPC is concerned, in

the facts of this case, it will not be so attracted and the other offences

are result of a domestic dispute. We have been shown the medical

papers wherein there are certain injuries on the Respondent No.2, but

as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Applicants, they do not

tally with what is stated in the F.I.R. Also those injuries are simple

injuries.

6.

Apart from the fact that the Respondent No.2 has filed an

affidavit before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, she has filed

consent affidavit in this court. The Respondent No.2 is present in the

Court and represented through an advocate who has stated regarding

her consent. In the light of these peculiar facts of this case, interaction

was made with the Respondent No.2 and she has informed that she

wants to put the past behind and going through these proceedings

itself is causing her mental trauma and as long as these proceedings

remain she will not have mental peace.

7.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, settlement

arrived at between the parties and the sentiments expressed by the

Respondent No.2 to us, we find that, it will in the interest of justice,

not to continue with the prosecution which would be disrupting

settlement process between the husband and wife and the in-laws and

embroiling entire family in prosecution for years together. A