Princepreet Singh Rajput And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Nawale 1 65 apl 982 21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 982 OF 2021 Princepreet Singh Rajpur & Ors ... Applicants.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...

Respondents.

Mr. Imran Shaikh i/b. Rajeev Sawant & Associate, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Viraj Shelatkar i/b. Aarif Ali, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent- State. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATE :

20 July 2022.

P.C. :

1.

By the present Application, the Applicant prays for quashing of F.I.R No. 8 of 2021 dated 10.01.2021 filed under Section 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1966. The Applicant No.1 is the husband of the Respondent No.2 who filed the above F.I.R. with Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai. The Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of the Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.4 is sister of Applicant No.1. The Applicant No.1 is married with the Respondent No.2 on 04.02.2016 and has a male child out of the

Nawale 2 65 apl 982 21.doc marriage.

2.

In the said F.I.R., the Applicants herein filed anticipatory Bail Application before the Sessions Court and during the pendency of the bail application consent terms were filed and the Applicants were released on bail. In terms of the consent terms filed before the Sessions Court, the Divorce Petition No. 1300 of 2020 and the Custody Petition No. 76 of 2020 were withdrawn. The parties have settled all their disputes and are staying together with the minor child in a separate accommodation with visitation rights to the grandparents. In view of the settlement between the parties, the present Petition is filed for quashing the said F.I.R. and the Respondent No.2 has given her consent to quash the F.I.R against all the accused person.

3.

The present F.I.R. arises out of a dispute between family members and they have amicably resolved the disputes, no purpose would be served in continuing with the prosecution and in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down in the case of Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, we quash the F.I.R.

4.

The Application is accordingly allowed.

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