Veerendraprasad Pillalamarri & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

**** Mr. Babu Singh a/w. Adv. Manshree Phadke i/b Mr. Arun Atwal for the Petitioners. Adv. Suman J. Mourya a/w Mr. Jigar Agarwal for Respondent No. 2. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Veerendraprasad Pillalamarri Petitioner No. 1 & Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Mahalaxmi Veerendraprasad Pillalamarri both present in Court. **** CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. : . Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP for the Respondent-State.

The Petitioners have fled the present petition for seeking quashment of C. C. No. 1043/PW/2015 fled before learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court, Andheri and FIR No. 01 of 2015 registered with Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai for the ofences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(II), 498(A), 406, 420, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry R.V.Patil 2 of 4 11 WP.4063.2021.doc Prohibition Act 1961 against the Petitioners.

The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows: The marriage of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu Vedic rites and rituals on 17th October, 2010 at Andhra Pradesh. It was an arranged marriage. After marriage, Respondent No. 2 joined company of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of Bangluru City. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents-in-law of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are having male child namely Karthikeya. Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are residing separately since 30th August, 2014. Due to diferences between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, there has been many legal proceedings initiated against each other in the nature of civil as well as criminal, in diferent Courts in Mumbai. Petitioner No. 1 has fled Divorce Petition No. 2823 of 2019 before the Family Court, Bandra, wherein he got divorce from Respondent No. 2. In the said proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and brought an end to the matrimonial relationship in an amicable and cordial way.

In view of the settlement between the parties, they have agreed not to proceed with FIR No. 1 of 2015 and C.C. No. 1043/PW/2015, in pursuance of the FIR above fled in the Court of Metropolitan R.V.Patil 3 of 4 11 WP.4063.2021.doc Magistrate 10th Court, at Andheri Mumbai. The consent terms are described in Paragraph No. 6 of the decree passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, wherein Respondent No. 2 agreed and undertook to withdraw all the proceedings including the present one. Respondent No. 2 has also agreed to withdraw all the cases fled against the Petitioners.

Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court. On specifc query made to her, she submitted that she signed the consent terms on her free will and wish and without coercion. She further stated that she has no objection for quashing the FIR and proceedings fled in pursuance thereof.

In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against these Petitioners would be nothing but an act of futility and no purpose would be served by keeping the proceeding pending before the Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2012(10) SCC 303.

Considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the Petitioners made out a case for allowing the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause R.V.Patil 4 of 4 11 WP.4063.2021.doc (a) and disposed of accordingly. (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) R.V.Patil