MOHAMAD ALI JOHAR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing. The applicants (original accused) have filed this application u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 159 of 2013 dated 12th April, 2013, registered with Sakinaka police station for offences u/s. 498(A), 406 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, on the grounds set out in detail in the application.

(2.) In nut shell, it is the say of applicants that the respondent No. 2 (orig. complainant) got married with applicant No. 1 on 4th November, 2011, as per the Muslim rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the period of about 3 months from the marriage, the differences crop up-between the respondent No. 2 and her in-laws. Since 17th February, 2012, respondent No. 2 residing separately in her parent's house. On 29th September, 2012, the respondent No. 2 (orig. complainant) gave birth to female child. Even after the birth of female child, the applicants have not visited respondent No. 2. She, therefore, lodged complaint with Sakinaka police station alleging cruelty, harassment and misappropriation of her Stridhan. On the basis of complaint lodged, the police have registered offence vide C.R. No. 159 of 2013 u/s. 498(A), 406 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC as against the applicants. The applicants moved the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants were protected by ad interim order passed by Sessions Court. While the application for anticipatory bail was pending for final disposal, the elderly members and well-wishers of applicants as well as respondent No. 2 intervened and tried to amicably resolve disputes between them. On their intervention, the applicants and respondent No. 2 have enter in settlement Accordingly, the consent terms were filed before the Sessions Court on 25th November, 2013. As per the settlement arrived, the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have decided to dissolve their marriage. Accordingly, on 17th November, 2013, the Talak has taken place between them and Talaknama to that effect was also drawn between the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2. It was also decided that the applicants and respondent No. 2 would take necessary steps for quashing the F.I.R. registered against the applicants vide C.R. No. 159 of 2013. In view of the settlement of matrimonial dispute, the applicants have approached this Court under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and to quash the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 159 of 2013 dated 12th April, 2013, with Sakinaka police station u/s. 498(A), 406 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC at the instance of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 has appeared in the matter alongwith her advocate and filed affidavit in reply. She has supported the case of the applicant for quashing the F.I.R.