← Library
Bombay High CourtAPL/80/2023allowed

Rijoy Vijayan Pillai And ORS v. Sr. Police Inspector Navghar Ps Mulund Mumbai And ANR

2023-04-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prakash D. Naik2 pages

SLJ 8-APL-80-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2023 Rijoy Vijayan Pillai And Ors.

...Applicants V/s.

The Sr. Police Inspector Navghar Police Station, Mulund, Mumbai And Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Mr. Sharif Shaikh, Ms. Afrin Khan for Applicants.

Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Mr. Yashpal M. Thakur, for Respondent No.3 & 4. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ.

DATE : 12th APRIL 2023.

P.C.:- .

Applicants i.e. husband and in-laws of Respondent No.4 have filed present Application for quashing of C.C. No.938/PW/2019 arising out of C.R. No.166 of 2019 registered with Navghar Police Station, Mulund, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by consent of Respondent No.3, the informant and Respondent No.4, wife of Applicant No.1. 2.

Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that, the Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.4 have executed 'Consent Terms' dated 25.11.2022 and in Paragraph - 19 thereof, it has been provided for Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2023.04.15 15:29:44 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR 1/2

SLJ 8-APL-80-2023.doc quashing of the present case by consent of Respondent No.4. He submitted that, the crime in question has been lodged by Respondent No.3 i.e. the father of Respondent No.4 and therefore he has also been impleaded in the present Application.

3.

Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 submitted that, the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have filed Affidavits dated 25.11.2022 giving their 'no objection' in quashing the said C.C. No.938/PW/2019 arising out of C.R. No.166 of 2019 registered with Navghar Police Station, Mulund, Mumbai. Their signatures are duly identified by their Advocate. 4.

In view the above, Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a).

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2