Anup Subhash Latnekar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3078 OF 2012

1. Anup Subhash Latnekar

2. Sadhana Subhash Latnekar

3. Subhash Shankar Latnekar ...

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Girija Maruti Khapre ...

Respondents .........

Mr. Samsher Garud i/b M/s Jayakar and Partners for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the State.

Mr. P. A. Pol for Respondent No. 2.

.........

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 8.12.2023 P.C. :- The petitioners have challenged the First Information Report dated 28.03.2012 registered with Juna Rajwada Police Station, District Kolhapur vide Crime No. 62 of 2012 for offences under Sections 406, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 alleging that the accused had misappropriated stridhan 1 / 3

belonging to the complainant valued at Rs. 17,41,496/-. 3.

Parties have resolved the dispute. The respondent No. 2/ complainant had agreed to give her consent for quashing FIR. 4.

The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are present through video conferencing.

5.

The respondent No. 2 has filed afodavit of consent which indicate that with intervention of the respective parties and with a view to put closure to the litigation between the parties, consent terms are executed. She has no objection, if the petition is allowed and Crime No. 62 of 2012 dated 28.03.2012 registered with Juna Rajwada Police Station is quashed. 6.

The consent terms executed by both the parties also state that the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs during the hearing of this proceedings and that the compliance of Rs. 10 Lakhs to be paid to mother of respondent No. 2 within a period of six months from the date of quashing of FIR.

7.

The demand draft dated 4.12.2023 bearing No. 208520 for an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs issued in favour of the mother of respondent No. 2, which is handed over to the Advocate of respondent No. 2.

2 / 3

8.

The consent terms is taken on record and marked 'X' for the purpose of identification.

9.

Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent No. 2. The dispute has arisen out of matrimonial discord between the parties. Since the parties have settled the matter amicably, the proceedings can be quashed.

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2012 is allowed.

(ii) The First Information Report dated 28.03.2012 registered with Juna Rajwada Police Station, District Kolhapur vide Crime No. 62 of 2012 for offences under Sections 406, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. (iii) Petitioner No. 1 to comply the undertaking of balance payment.

(iv) Petition is disposed of.

( N.R. BORKAR, J.) (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) 3 / 3