Hingora Mohammed Salman Mohammed Rafique And ORS. v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2847 OF 2022

1. Hingora Mohammed Salman ] Mohammed Rafique ]

2. Aamna Rafique Hingora ]

3. Rafique Jamal Umar Hingora ]

4. Mohamed Iqbal Jamal ] Umar Hingora ] Petitioners vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

2. Fariha Salman Hingora ] Respondents .....

Mr. Husen A.R. Shaikh a/w Mr. Tanmay Mhatre, for Petitioners. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, for Respondent No.1-State.

Mr Umar Dalvi a/w Zeeshan Sundar i/b Rajendra Rathod, for Respondent No.2.

.....

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.

DATE : 3rd February, 2023.

ORDER: [Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.] 1.

Heard.

2.

Rule.

SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2023.02.09 15:08:29 +0530 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE

3.

Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.

4.

Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1State and Mr. Dalvi, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

5.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C"), the petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report (for short "F.I.R") registered vide C.R. No.283 of 2021 with Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C") and consequently the proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 69th Court, Sewree, Mumbai being Case No.8/PW/2023. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

6.

Briefly stated, facts are as under.

7.

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioners No.2 and 4 are her in-laws. Respondent No.2 is an Air Hostess working with Saudi Airlines since March, 2015. In the year 2016, she was introduced with petitioner No.1 - Salman Hingora by a common friend. She was conversing with the said Salman on telephone. After some time, they became friends and ultimately, petitioner No.1 - Salman put forth a proposal of marriage before respondent No.2. Despite knowing the fact that petitioner No.1Salman Hingora was already married, respondent No.2 agreed to marry him precisely on the ground that four marriages are permissible in Islam. Respondent No.2 used to spend 15 days at Saudi Arabia and 15 days in India. They decided to marry on 30th November, 2020. As such, marriage was solemnized as per rituals of Islamic religion.

After few days, relations between the couple strained on account of trifle reasons. Petitioner No.1 - Salman Hingora had blocked mobile number of respondent No.2. First wife of petitioner No.1 abused the respondent No.2 on mobile. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 demanded Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent No.2 and also insisted her that she should ask her father to arrange a flat for them. As such, a report came to be lodged as above, against the petitioners.

8.

After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate 69th Court at Sewree, Mumbai being Case No.8/PW/2023.

9.

The parties have now decided to give a quietus to the dispute, in pursuant to which, respondent No.2 has sworn an affidavit dated 3rd February, 2023. The said affidavit is duly notarized before the Notary. In the said affidavit, respondent No.2 has stated that petitioners and she has now settled the dispute amicably and they have no grievance against each other, therefore, she does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings and the same be quashed and set aside, in view of the amicable settlement between them.

10. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. On being questioned, she reiterates what is stated by her in her affidavit. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has tendered photostat copy of her Driving Licence duly attested by her. The same is taken on record. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has identified her. Learned A.P.P has verified her original Driving Lincence.

11. Considering the nature of the dispute, amicable settlement between the parties, affidavit of respondent No.2 and having regard to the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 1 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2, there is no impediment in allowing the petition.

12. Accordingly, petition is allowed and C.R. bearing No.283 of 2021 registered with Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai, as against the petitioners and consequently, proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 69th Court at Sewree being Case No.8/PW/3/ 2023, are quashed and set aside.

13. Petitioner No.1 to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with Vee Care Foundation, details of which are as under;

Vee Care Foundation Government Registration No.E/30112 (Mumbai) Bank Account Number 123005000217 IFSC NO.

ICIC0001230 ICICI Bank Parel Branch The said costs to be deposited within four weeks from today. (2012) 10 SCC 303 (2014) 6 SCC 406

14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms subject to petitioner No.1-Salman Hingora depositing costs, as stated above. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

15. Matter to be kept for recording compliance regarding deposit of costs, on 10th March, 2023.

16. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]