Bombay High Court
Faizal Hussen Sayyed And Ors vs Khurshid Sayed Faisal And Anr on 30 January, 2023
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, P. K. Chavan
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date: 2023.02.03
17:52:37 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 581 OF 2023
1. Faizal Hussen Sayyed
2. Hussen Anwar Sayyed
3. Shamimara Hussen Sayyed ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Khurshid Sayed Faisal
2. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
Ms. Jindagi Shah a/w Mr. Gaurav Pandey for the Petitioners.
Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Sameena Jahangir for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Dilip Sawant, PSI, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Wakodikar 1/7
13. WPST 581-2023.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.2-State. Ms. Sameena
Jahangir waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1.
3. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No.
570 of 2006 registered with the Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 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. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the
respondent No.1 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law
and mother-in-law respectively of the respondent No.1. It appears
that petitioner No.1 got married to the respondent No.1 on 15 th
September, 2001 and the parties have been living separately since
Wakodikar 2/7
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
June, 2008. From the said wedlock, the couple has one son who is
aged about 20 years and a daughter aged about 19 years. As according
to the respondent No.1, she was allegedly ill-treated by the petitioners,
she lodged the aforesaid FIR as against them alleging the aforesaid
offences. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the said case and
the case is presently pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
5. Apart from the aforesaid proceeding, it appears that the
respondent No.1 has also filed a petition before the Family Court at
Bandra, which was disposed of by the Family Court vide Judgment and
Order dated 25th May, 2010. It appears that pursuant to the Consent
Terms entered into between the parties, the said proceedings are also
settled between the parties.
6. In the interregnum, during the pendency of the aforesaid
proceeding before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the parties have
decided to settle their dispute and put a quietus to the same. We are
Wakodikar 3/7
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
informed that the petitioner No.1 is taking care of the education of his
children and continues to do so. Initially, as agreed i.e. as per the
terms of settlement, the petitioner No.1 had paid a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 by way of one time settlement.
Since we felt that the said settlement was unfair and unreasonable, we
kept the matter in Chambers, to explore the possibility, as to whether
the petitioners could enhance the amount from Rs.5,00,000/-. After
interacting with the petitioner No.1 through Video Conferencing, the
petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to
the respondent No.1 on or before 28 th January, 2023, directly by
NEFT.
7. Today, we are informed by the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the respondent No.1 that the petitioner No.1,
as agreed, has transferred Rs.7,00,000/- by NEFT in respondent
No.1's account, in addition to Rs.5,00,000/- already paid. Learned
Counsel for the respondent No.1 has tendered an affidavit-in-reply of
the respondent No.1 dated 30 th January, 2023, duly affirmed before
Wakodikar 4/7
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
the Notary. To the said affidavit, is annexed the respondent No.1's
bank statement evidencing payment by the petitioner No.1 to her i.e.
Rs.7,00,000/- in addition to what was settled i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-. In her
affidavit, she has stated that the matter is amicably settled and that she
has received Rs.5,00,000/- and in addition, Rs.7,00,000/- from the
petitioner No.1. She has further stated that her son is working and
studying and her daughter is engaged and is to be married soon. She
has also given her no objection for quashing of the FIR in view of the
settlement between them.
8. We are informed that pursuant to the divorce between the
parties, the petitioner No.1 has got re-married. On the last date, when
the matter was kept in the Chambers, the respondent No.1 had given
her no objection to the quashing of the proceedings. She was also
identified by her Counsel.
9. Considering the nature of dispute, the allegations between
the parties, the amicable settlement between them, the affidavit of the
Wakodikar 5/7
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
respondent No.1 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
petition.
10. The petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing
C.R. No. 570 of 2006 registered with the Bandra Police Station,
Mumbai, and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, being R.C.C.
No. 750/PW/2010, are quashed and set-aside.
11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition is
disposed of accordingly.
12. In view of the quashing of the proceeding, the account of
the petitioner No.3, freezed by the police, to be defreezed. The police
to take immediate steps to defreeze the account of the petitioner
No.3.
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2014) 6 SCC 466
Wakodikar 6/7
13. WPST 581-2023.doc
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 to file her
Vakalatnama, if not filed, on behalf of the said respondent, in the
Registry, within two weeks of uploading of this order.
14. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Wakodikar 7/7
