Praveen Manik Kadam And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2025

1. Praveen Manik Kadam

2. Manik Laxman Kadam

3. Rohini Manik Kadam

4. Hrishikesh Manik Kadam Ors.

.....Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Mrs. Shweta Kisan Pawar @ Shweta Praveen Kadam.

.....Respondents ----- Chinmay Patil - Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. M. H. Mhatre - APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Abhinav Tayade a/w Nikhil Wagh - Advocate for Respondent No. ----- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 23rd APRIL 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is a petition for quashing of the proceedings pending before JMFC Court, Panvel, vide RCC No. 706 of 2024 arising out of C.R. No. 29 of 2024 registered with Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506, 509 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2025.04.28 12:44:11 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR

: 2 :

2.

Heard learned Advocate Shri Patil for the Petitioners, learned APP Ms. Mhatre for the Respondent No. 1-State and learned Advocate Shri Tayade for the Respondent No. 2. The learned Advocate Shri Tayade is permitted to file Vakilpatra within a period of 10 days from today.

3.

The F.I.R. is lodged on 03.02.2024 by the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 is her husband. The Petitioner No. 2 is the Petitioner No. 1's father. The Petitioner No. 3 is his sister and the Petitioner No. 4 is his brother.

4.

It is not necessary to refer the allegations in the F.I.R. in detail, as the Parties have not only settled the matter, but the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 have also decided to stay together forgetting their troubled past. The F.I.R. mentions that the Respondent No. 2 got married with the Petitioner No. 1 on 01.06.2022. They had met each other through a matrimonial site. At the time of marriage itself, there was some demand expressed by the Petitioner No. 2 and his wife. After the marriage, the Respondent No. 2 started staying with the Petitioner No. 1's family at Pune. However, the Petitioners started ill treating her. The Petitioner No. 1 went to London for his job. The Respondent No. 2 was working with an

: 3 :

Airline. She had her job at Mumbai. Therefore, she came back to stay in Mumbai. She used to visit the Petitioner's house in Pune, but she was never welcomed at her matrimonial house. She was made to do household work. There are allegations that the Petitioner No. 4 used to look at her with bad intentions. On 14.12.2022, she went to London. She had left her job. But the Petitioner No. 1 used to harass her. He had also lost his job. He was constantly demanding money from her. In June 2023, she was sent back to India. The Petitioner No. 1 also followed her to India. The ill-treatment continued. The Streedhan was retained by the Petitioners. In August 2023, she and the Petitioner again went back to London, but they returned to India as her Mother-in-law was not well. She passed away on 13.09.2023. The Petitioners continued harassing the informant-Respondent No. 2. On these allegations, the F.I.R. is lodged.

5.

The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. The charge-sheet contains statements of the Parents of the Respondent No. 2, who have supported her case. 6.

The Parties have now settled their dispute. The Respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit-in-reply. She has stated that after several mediations and discussions, they have decided to resolve all the

: 4 :

disputes and the Petitioner No. 1 and herself had decided to continue with their marriage. They had entered into a compromise deed dated 10.01.2025, which they intend to file in the Marriage Petition bearing no. 10074 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune. She has given her specific no objection for quashing of the present proceeding. She is present in the Court. She is identified by her learned counsel. She reiterated the contents of the affidavit and stated before the Court that she wants to go to London and stay with the Petitioner No. 1. She has no grievance against the Petitioners, and she was giving her no objection for quashing of the proceedings.

7.

The dispute between the Parties was private in nature. The Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 had settled their dispute and have decided to stay together. Therefore, nothing further survives in this prosecution. We are inclined to allow this petition. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

: 5 :

(ii) The F.I.R. registered against the present Petitioners vide C.R. No. 29 of 2024 at Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506, 509 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding bearing RCC No. 706 of 2024 pending before JMFC Court at Panvel are quashed and set aside.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)