Mr.Rohit Houshilal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.2 who is wife of the 1st petitioner. Counsel are agreed that the above F.I.R. is the result of matrimonial discord between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel…
Judgment
Ms.Mallika Ingale for Petitioner Ms.P.H.Kantharia A.P.P.for Respondent-State Mr.Maruti Sawant PSI Kandivli Police Station present CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ P.C. DATED: 22nd February 2010
#1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed that F.I.R. No.325 of 2009 registered with Kandivli police station under sections 498A, 406,34 of I.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 against the petitioners be quashed and set aside.
#2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.2 who is wife of the 1st petitioner. Counsel are agreed that the above F.I.R. is the result of matrimonial discord between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed the court that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have amicably settled all their disputes. M.J.Petition No.F/58 of 2010 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been already - 2 - filed at Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. Copy of the consent terms is annexed to the petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Affidavits have been filed in this court by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to the above effect. We must note that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent who were present in this court on the last occasion had confirmed that they have amicably settled their disputes. In view of this, in our opinion it would be in interest of the parties that the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners is quashed. Hence in the light of the statement made before us and the affidavits filed by the petitioner and 2nd respondent and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S. JOSHI VS.STATE OF HARYANA vs State of Haryana 2003 (4) SUPREME COURT CASES 675 we quash the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners being F.I.R.No.325 of 2009 registered with Kandivali police station. We note the presence of P.S.I.Maruti Sawant of Kandivli police station, Mumbai in the court today. The petition is disposed of. SMT RANJANA DESAI, J SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, J - 3 -
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Feb 2010. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR.
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.