Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Devendra and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Devendra and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Jan 24, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1105074

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Application (Apl) No.441 of 2012
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3, 4 – Case Referred: Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (9) 257 SCALE (Para 4). Comparative Citation: 2013 ALL MR (CRI) 2127

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devendra and Others

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and Another

Excerpt

code of criminal procedure, 1973 - section 482 – indian penal code, 1860 - section 498a, 506 – dowry prohibition act, 1961 - section 3, 4 – case referred: gian singh vs. state of punjab and another 2012 (9) 257 scale (para 4). comparative citation: 2013 all mr (cri) 2127oral judgment: (a.p. lavande, j.) rule. rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2. by this application under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, the applicants against whom the first information report has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under section 498-a 506 of the indian penal code and u/s 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act, seek quashing of the first information report on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves. the applicant no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.2 and the applicant nos.3 to 5 are close relatives of the applicant no.1. the applicants are present in the court and have been identified by advocate mr. thakur and the respondent no.2 has been identified by mr. bobde advocate. 3. the applicants and the respondents have filed individual affidavits, inter alia, mentioning that they want to settle the dispute amongst themselves and that the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 are residing together as husband and wife pursuant to the compromise entered into between them. 4. the settlement of the dispute between the parties comes within the purview of the judgment of the apex court in the case of gian singh vs. state of punjab and another reported in 2012 (9) 257 scale and, therefore, in our considered view, this is a fit case in which the first information report lodged by the respondent no.2 against the applicants for the offences punishable under section 498-a and 506 of the indian penal code and under section 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act, deserves to be quashed and as such is hereby quashed. 5. rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants against whom the First Information Report has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, seek quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves. The applicant no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.2 and the applicant nos.3 to 5 are close relatives of the applicant no.1. The applicants are present in the Court and have been identified by Advocate Mr. Thakur and the respondent no.2 has been identified by Mr. Bobde Advocate.

3. The applicants and the respondents have filed individual affidavits, inter alia, mentioning that they want to settle the dispute amongst themselves and that the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 are residing together as husband and wife pursuant to the compromise entered into between them.

4. The settlement of the dispute between the parties comes within the purview of the Judgment of the apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (9) 257 SCALE and, therefore, in our considered view, this is a fit case in which the First Information Report lodged by the respondent no.2 against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, deserves to be quashed and as such is hereby quashed.

5. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial