Hemantkumar Uttamrao Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. As such case for quashing is made out. In view thereof, the present Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (a-1) (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE) Amol D. Nawale 3
Judgment
Mr. Mukesh Dongare for the Applicant. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent No.1. Mr. Nikhil Khatal for the Respondent No.2. ____________________________________ CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH .S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2023 P.C.:
This Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 0123/2019 registered at Kopar khairane Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 17th April, 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The prosecution case against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner got married with Respondent No.2-Complainant on 25th March, 2016. Thereafter, out of matrimonial discord, it is claimed Amol D. Nawale 1 that differences occurred based on the ill-treatment meted out to Respondent No.2 by the Petitioner and for non fulfillment of demand of dowry.
The matter was thereafter investigated and the Petitioner came to be charge-sheeted. In response to the prayer for quashing, the Respondent No.2-Complainant has filed affidavit thereby extending consent. In the consent affidavit it is stated by Respondent No.2-Complainant that they have mutually resolved the interse differences and as such she is willingly extending consent for quashing the offences in question so also the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In this background, after counsel for Respondent No.2 has identified her, we requested Ms. Deshmukush, learned APP to confront Respondent No.2 as to whether she admits to the contents of the affidavit thereby extending consent for quashing. The Respondent No.2 who is physically present in Court and identified by her counsel, has stated through APP that she has willingly extended her consent for quashing of the prosecution against the Petitioner.
In view of the consent extended by the Respondent No.2 for quashing of the prosecution, the criminal proceeding cannot be taken to its logical end against the Petitioner.
We are sensitive to law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Amol D. Nawale 2 Punjab & Anr. Reported in (2014) 6 SCC 129.
As such case for quashing is made out. In view thereof, the present Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (a-1) (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE) Amol D. Nawale 3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Aug 2023. The bench was RAJESH S PATIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.