Ali Jafar Sayyed And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

50-wp-779-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL SIDE APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.779 OF 2022 Mr. Ali Jafar Sayyed & Others ..

Petitioners.

v/s.

State of Maharashtra & Another ..

Respondents.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mishra, for the Petitioners. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vinay S. Balotiya, for Respondent No.2.

Digitally signed by SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date:

2022.07.25 10:51:49 +0530 CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATE : 20th JULY, 2022.

P.C:- SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking the following prayer:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceeding pending in the nature of C.C. No.50/PW/2019 in the file of 34th M.M. Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai arising out of F.I.R. No.215/2019 registered at the behest of Respondent No.2 with Nehrunagar Police Station." The reason for seeking this prayer is the consent given by Respondent No.2- Complainant.

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2Complainant; Petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law; Petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law; Petitioner Nos.4 & 6 are brother-in-law, and Petitioner No.5 is sister-in-law of Respondent No.2. S.R.JOSHI

50-wp-779-2022.doc At the instance of Respondent No.2, the FIR was registered on 26 June 2019 under Section 498(a), 406, 323, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C. Respondent No.2 alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and demands of dowry. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 states that Respondent No.2 has given consent to the quashing of FIR, and parties have entered into consent terms lodged in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai. AfÏdavit of consent is filed by Respondent No.2, stating that she is giving consent because all terms and conditions of consent have been fully satisfied. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that Petitioner No.

1 will pay the amounts specified in the consent terms -Clause 2(a) of the premium of Life Insurance Policy in the name of the child - Aamana, till she becomes major. On instructions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 states that this clause of the consent terms is understood between the parties. A case is made out for quashing of the FIR. Not quashing the FIR will defeat the settlement between the parties and may not result in a conviction.

Accordingly, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER,J.) (NITIN JAMDAR,J.) S.R.JOSHI