Hhrushikesh Bhaskar Pawar And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2114 OF 2024 Hrushikesh Bhaskar Pawar and others .....Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another .....Respondents ----- Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for the Petitioners. Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Akshata Desai, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 07th MARCH, 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is a Petition for quashing of the FIR registered vide C.R. No.148/2024 at Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik and the resultant charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.

2.

The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner No.1 is her husband. The Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are his parents. The Petitioner No.4 is his sister. The Petitioner No.5 is husband of the Petitioner No.4.

Deshmane(PS)

: 2 :

3.

Heard Mr. Akshay Bankapur, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Smt. M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Akshata Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

4.

The Respondent No.2, in her FIR, has stated that she got married with the Petitioner No.1 on 18.5.2022. Shortly thereafter the Petitioners started demanding Rs.50 Lakhs. She was told to bring that amount from her father. The reason was that they had purchased an agricultural land for Rs.90 Lakhs, therefore, they wanted the Respondent No.2's father to pay that amount of Rs.50 Lakhs. There are allegations that the mother-in-law used to say that enough ornaments were not given in the marriage. The main allegations are made by the Respondent No.2 in the FIR itself. 5.

The parties have now settled the matter. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have decided to obtain divorce. The Respondent No.2 has filed her affidavit-in-reply giving her no objection for quashing of these proceedings. 6.

The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated before the Court that she has no objection for quashing of

: 3 :

the proceedings provided that the Petitioners honour their commitment to pay the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to her which they have not yet paid.

7.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have every intention to honour their commitment and though the matter can be disposed of today, but, it can be kept for compliance and if the amount is not paid to the Respondent No.2, this order can be recalled.

8.

We have considered this situation. The matter is settled between the parties. The society at large is not involved. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have decided to go their separate ways. Therefore, we are inclined quash the criminal proceedings subject to the apprehension expressed by the Respondent No.2.

9.

Hence, the following order:

:: O R D E R ::

i.

The FIR registered vide C.R. No.148/2024 at Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik as well as the consequent criminal prosecution, are quashed and set aside.

: 4 :

ii.

This order is subject to the condition of the Petitioners paying Rs.4,75,000/- to the Respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks from today and producing an acknowledgment issued by the Respondent No.2 in the Registry within that period. If such an acknowledgment is produced in the Registry, there shall be no further reference before the Court. But, if the amount is not paid and an acknowledgment to that effect is not produced in the Registry, then the matter be listed for further consideration; and in that case this order shall be liable to be recalled.

iii.

With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date:

2025.03.15 10:39:08 +0530 PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE