Deepak Bhiku Bhuvad And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 / 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4379 OF 2025 Deepak Bhiku Bhuvad & Anr.

.... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

.... Respondents .......

• Mr. R. R. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhruv Yadav and Mr. Hasan Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners.

• Ms. Sangita E. Phad, APP for the State/Respondent. • Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

The present Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing No.I-254/2022 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent Criminal Case bearing No.RCC/379/2022 registered against the Petitioners on the report filed by the Respondent Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2025.10.15 11:05:17 +0530 MANUSHREE NESARIKAR No.2.

Nesarikar

2 / 4 2.

Heard Mr. R. R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Sangita E. Phad, learned APP for the State.

3.

The matter is amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the allegations made against the Petitioners, in detail. Briefly stated, the said FIR mentions that the Petitioner No.1 had got married with the Respondent No.2 on 19/05/2019. After the marriage, the Respondent No.2 went to cohabit in the family of the Petitioner No.1. After three months of marriage, the Petitioners subjected the Respondent No.2 to cruelty for bringing less dowry. The Petitioner No.2 Sangita used to taunt her that if the Petitioner No.1/husband had married with someone else, they would have got more dowry. Therefore, in January 2020, the parents and other relatives of the Respondent No.2 came to the Petitioners, to request them not to ill-treat her. But the Petitioners quarreled with them. In March 2020, the Petitioner No.1 assaulted the Respondent No.2 at the instigation of Petitioner No.2 Sangita.

3 / 4 Therefore, the Respondent No.2 filed the FIR which resulted in filing of the charge-sheet. The statements of brother, father and maternal uncle of the Respondent No.2 supports the allegations in the FIR.

4.

Now the matter is amicably settled between the parties. The Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She is identified by her learned counsel. She has stated that she has no objection for quashing of the present prosecution. She has filed her affidavit. The Petitioner husband and the Respondent No.2 have decided to separate by way of divorce with mutual consent. Thus, they have decided to lead their lives in their own way happily. Respondent No.2 reiterated her no objection before the Court.

5.

In view thereof, continuation of the present prosecution against the Petitioners would not serve any purpose. Therefore, we are inclined to allow this Petition. 6.

Hence, the following order :

4 / 4

O R D E R

(i) The Petition is allowed.

(ii) The FIR vide C.R.No.I-254/2022 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station and the consequent Criminal Case bearing No.

RCC/379/2022 arising out of the said FIR, are quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Petition is disposed of.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)