Sanjay Harikrishan Minglani And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2024 Sanjay Harikrishan Minglani and Anr.

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

.....Respondents ----- Siddharth Singh i/by A. M. Saraogi - Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. Amit P. Ghag - Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. S. R. Agarkar - APP for the Respondent-State. Priyadarshini w/o Sanjay Minglani - Respondent No. 2 present ----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 31st JANUARY 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is a petition for quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 341 of 2022 dated 14.08.2022 at Mira Road Police Station under Section 420, 498-A and 507 of the Indian Penal Code resulting in R.C.C. No. 3510 of 2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane.

by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2025.02.07 11:29:13 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR

: 2 :

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and learned APP for the RespondentState. 3.

The F.I.R. is lodged by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 was her husband. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the brothers of the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 5 is the sister of the Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 3 is the wife of the Petitioner No. 2.

4.

The F.I.R. mentions that Respondent No. 2 got married with the Petitioner No. 1 on 29.06.2018. The informant's family spent money for buying ornaments, clothes and household articles etc. for the Petitioner and their relatives. The F.I.R. thereafter, mentions that the Petitioner No. 1 was suffering from health issues. There are allegations that the informant was not given food on time and there was other harassment caused to her. On these allegations, the F.I.R. is lodged.

5.

Now the matter is settled between the Parties. In fact the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 have obtained

: 3 :

divorce by decree of divorce dated 03.10.2024 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane. The Respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit-in-reply giving consent for quashing of the proceedings. The Respondent No. 2 appeared through video conferencing. Her Counsel identified her. She has stated in her affidavit-in-reply about passing of the decree of divorce and in paragraph nos. 5 and 6, she has given her specific no objection for quashing of these proceedings.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has handed over a demand draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in the Court.

7.

Considering that the dispute between the Parties is purely personal in nature and society in general is not involved. Therefore, proceeding can be quashed. Hence, the following Order:-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

: 4 :

(ii) The F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 341 of 2022 registered with Mira Road Police Station under Sections 420, 498-A and 507 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane vide RCC No. 3510 of 2022 are quashed and set aside.

8.

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of.

(S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)