Sindhutai Tanaji Patil And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3421 OF 2024 Sindhutai Tanaji Patil and anr.
.... Petitioners V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr.
.... Respondents Mr. S.R. Nargolkar a/w. Mr. Arjun Kadam for the Petitioners. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State. Mr. Sontakke, API, Sanpada Police Station, present. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 22nd DECEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1) The Petitioners accused in an FIR bearing C.R.No.138/2021 registered with Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeks quashing and setting-aside of said FIR and the consequent charge-sheet.
The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are mother in-law and husband of Respondent No.2. During pendency of the Petition, they have arrived at an amicable settlement. In view of the said settlement, Respondent No.2 has 'no objection' to quash and set-aside the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet. An Affidavit duly signed and affirmed by Respondent No.2 to that effect alongwith the consent terms has been tendered and it is taken on record. 2) In the wake of above, it is not necessary to reproduce the 1/3
allegations in the FIR in detail. In short, the case of the Respondent No.2 is that, she got married with Petitioner No.2 on 19/04/2015. On 02/05/2015, the couple went to America. There, Petitioner No.2 used to talk with her in an insulting manner and he caused her to transfer Rs.6,00,000/- in the bank account of his father, which she had earned while working in India. Petitioner did not continue her work permit and he was not giving her enough money for her personal expenses. Thus, he had mentally harassed her. Meanwhile, the couple went to reside in California. But there also, Petitioner No.2 mentally harassed her. In April, they came to India on the say of Petitioner No.2. However, he dropped her at her parents' house against her wish to reside at Kolhapur and then snatching her green card etc., he went away. In this act the in-laws helped her husband.
Therefore, on 15/09/2021, Respondent No.2 filed her oral complaint pursuant to which said FIR came to be registered. On completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. 3) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in view of the settlement, the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by mutual consent. In her Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has stated that all the disputes and differences between the parties and their family members have been successfully resolved. As per the consent terms, she has accorded her no objection to quash and set-aside the present FIR and the charge-sheet. The 2/3
Respondent No.2 is present before the Court and she has reiterated the contents of her Affidavit. Thus, the parties have decided to live their life as they wanted.
4) In the backdrop, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the Petition and pass the following Order :- (a) The proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.138/2021, registered with Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai and the consequent charge-sheet bearing Reg.Cril.Case No.58 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane against the Petitioners, are quashed and set-aside qua. (b) Petition is made absolute in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2025.12.26 15:52:57 +0530 3/3