Bombay High Court
Pankaj Ramkishan Gupta And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, P. K. Chavan
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2023.01.13
CHITNIS 16:57:43 +0530
94-wp.734.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2020
1. Pankaj Ramkishan Gupta
2. Sita Ramkishan Gupta
3. Kamlesh @Rajesh Ramkishan Gupta
4. Ajay @Amit Ramkishan Gupta
5. Shivkumar Chhedilal Gupta
6. Suraj Prabhunarayan Gupta
7. Aarti @Kusum Suraj Gupta
8. Nootan Chhedilal Gupta ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Pooja Pankaj Gupta @
Pooja Ramprakash Gupta ...Respondents
Mr. Q. S. Kapasi, for the Petitioners.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1- State.
Ms. Pooja Pankaj Gupta @ Pooja Ramprakash Gupta, Respondent
No.2 present in-person.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 9th JANUARY 2023
P.C. :
Mentioned out of turn.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
N. S. Chitnis 1/5
94-wp.734.2020.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. Respondent No.2,
who is present in-person waives notice.
3. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No.
612 of 2018, registered with the Tulinj Police Station, District -
Palghar, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406,
323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Quashing is sought
on the premise, that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
4. Perused the papers. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of
the respondent No.2; the petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law;
petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, the brothers-in-law; petitioner No.7, the
sister-in-law and petitioner No.8, the cousin mother-in-law
respectively of the respondent No.2. It appears that the respondent
N. S. Chitnis 2/5
94-wp.734.2020.doc
No.2 and the petitioner No.1 got married on 30 th January 2015, after
which the respondent No.2 started residing at her matrimonial home.
As according to the respondent No.2, she was ill-treated and
harrassed by the petitioners, she filed the aforesaid FIR as against
them, alleging the aforesaid offences. After investigation, charge-sheet
was filed in the said case and the case is presently pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai being RCC No.1245 of
2018.
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the
parties amicably settled their dispute and decided to put a quietus to
the same. It appears that after the filing of the aforesaid petition, the
Family Court at Mumbai allowed the petition seeking divorce by
mutual consent under 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the
petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the
parties have tendered a photocopy of the Judgment and Order dated
1st June 2021, by which a decree of divorce by mutual consent was
passed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. The same
N. S. Chitnis 3/5
94-wp.734.2020.doc
is taken on record.
6. Although, the advocate for the respondent No.2 is not
present, the respondent No.2 is present in Court. The respondent
No.2 states that she has filed an affidavit in this Court dated 24 th
March 2021, duly notarized before the notary. The said affidavit is at
page 24 of the petition. Respondent No. 2 has tendered a self attested
photocopy of her aadhar card. The same is taken on record. In the
said affidavit, she has stated that she has received Rs.5 lakhs by way of
full and final settlement from the petitioner No.1 and as such she has
no objection for quashing of the proceeding initiated at her behest.
7. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court. On being
questioned, she re-iterates what is stated by her in her affidavit.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has identified the respondent
No.2 and the learned APP has verified the original aadhar card of the
respondent No.2.
N. S. Chitnis 4/5
94-wp.734.2020.doc
8. Considering the nature of dispute, the relations between
the parties, the affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having regard to
the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab and Another1 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Another2, there is no impediment in allowing the petition.
9. The petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing
C.R. No. 612 of 2018, registered with the Tulinj Police Station,
District - Palghar, and consequently, the proceeding pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasai being RCC No.1245
of 2018, are quashed and set-aside.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition is
disposed of accordingly.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2014) 6 SCC 466
N. S. Chitnis 5/5
