Naved Iqbal Shaikh And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 407 Bom

 sng                                                   1                          wp-177.17




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO.177 OF 2017



 Mr. Naved Iqbal Shaikh and Others.              ..                     Petitioners
       Vs
 The State of Maharashtra and Others.            ..                     Respondents
       -
 Mr. Abdul R. Shaikh for the Petitioners.
 Shri K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1.
 Mrs. Aisha M.Z. Ansari for the Respondent No.2.
       -


                                 CORAM  :       A.S. OKA & 
                                                SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ

                                 DATED    :     2ND MARCH 2017


 (ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J)



 1.                Rule.   The   learned   APP   waives   service   for   the   first 

 Respondent.   The Advocate for the  second Respondent waives service. 

 Forthwith taken up for final disposal.



 2.                The   prayer   in   this   Petition   under   Article   226   of   the 

 Constitution  of  India  read with Section  482 of the  Code  of Criminal 

 Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") is for quashing the First Information 

 Report (FIR) lodged at the instance of the second Respondent for the 

 offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the 




::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:31:57 :::
  sng                                                2                           wp-177.17

 Indian Penal Code.  The prayer for quashing is made on the basis of the 

 settlement between the first Petitioner and the second Respondent.  The 

 Petitioner and the second Respondent are the husband and wife.   The 

 second Respondent is the first informant who has set the criminal law in 

 motion by registering the offence against the Petitioners.



 3.                The parties are relying upon the settlement arrived at in 

 the form of consent terms filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 

 First Class, Cantonment Board, Pune in a Complaint filed under Section 

 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the 

 second Respondent.   The settlement records that at the relevant time 

 i.e. 26th  May 2015, the first Applicant was a resident of Dubai.   The 

 second Respondent along with her children agreed to start residing with 

 the first Petitioner at Dubai.   On the basis of the said settlement, the 

 second Respondent was permitted to withdraw the said complaint filed 

 under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005.



 4.                Today,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   second 

 Respondent has tendered across the bar an affidavit dated 14 th February 

 2017   executed   by   the   second   Respondent   before   one   Lance   William 

 Wiltshire, a Notary Public at Auckland in New Zealand.  A certificate of 

 execution of the said affidavit separately signed and sealed by the said 

 Notary Public is annexed to the said affidavit.   In the said affidavit, the 




::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:31:57 :::
  sng                                                     3                          wp-177.17

 second   Respondent   has   stated   that   since   July   2015,   she   resumed 

 cohabitation with the first Petitioner at Dubai and since then, she along 

 with her children are living together with her husband.  Thereafter, the 

 first   Petitioner   along   with   the   second   Respondent   shifted   to   New 

 Zealand.  She has stated that all of them have been peacefully staying 

 together   and,   therefore,   there   is   no   objection   for   quashing   the 

 proceedings.



 5.                In view of the settlement filed before the learned Judicial 

 Magistrate, First Class and the affidavit tendered today of the second 

 Respondent,   it   appears   that   from   July   2015   onwards,   the   second 

 Respondent and the first Petitioner have resumed cohabitation and till 

 today,   they   are   staying   together   along   with   their   children   in   New 

 Zealand.  



 6.                In   view   of   the   reconciliation   between   the   first   Petitioner 

 and   the   second   Respondent,   now   continuation   of   the   criminal 

 proceedings   arising  out   of   the   matrimonial  dispute   will  cause  undue 

 harassment to both the first Petitioner and the second Respondent.



 7.                Hence, the Petition must succeed and we pass the following 

 order.




::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                            ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:31:57 :::
  sng                                                 4                           wp-177.17

                                 ORDER : 

(a) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),

which read thus:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court in its inherent and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be pleased to quash and set aside the criminal case No.412 of 2014 pending before the J.M.F.C. Court, Pune."

(b) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of

this order.

(SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )