Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 36 (BOM)

Shashikala Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra

1993-02-01

M.G.CHAUDHARI

body1993
ORDER (ORAL) M.G. Chaudhari, J. - This is a family dispute. Petitioner is the mother of Preeti Harish Kotwal who is the wife of respondent NO. 2 Harish. The petitioner has filed a complaint against Harish Kotwal and two others who are his parents in the 21st Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra being case No. 162/Misc./92 for offence under section 406 I.P.C in connection with "streedhan" of Smt. Preeti. The jewellery and articles are mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint. She also applied for search warrant in respect of a bank locker No. 665/E at the Bank of Baroda, Santacruz (W) Branch The locker has been sealed by the order of this court dated 19.1.1993. 2. All the three respondents are at present in Australia. Preeti the wife of respondent No. 2 is also in Australia. Both namely Preeti (the wife), and respondent No. 2 Harish (the husband) are Australian citizens. 3. The learned Magistrate although has observed that on perusal of the complaint and copies of documents facts disclose an offence under section 406 I.P.C. which is cognizable, however instead of taking cognizance straight away has referred the matter to the police for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. stating that the facts and nature are complicated. That order was passed on 22.1.1993 and it is challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner has prayed that the said order may be quashed and set aside. 4. The matter was heard earlier on some occasions. Instructions were awaited from respective parties and at a certain stage it was indicated to the Court that the parties desired to settle the matter between them it being a family dispute. For that purpose the matter was also adjourned from time to time. Today Mr. Hudlikar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 along with Mrs. Kanetkar, advocate on record stated that he has received instructions from respondent No. 2 Harish Kotwal from Australia vide his letter dated 21.1.1994 stating therein as follows:- "I am making all efforts to settle the property case out of Court. In this regard, I am making an offer of settlement "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" to Preeti Kotwa This offer relates to all property including all issues raised by Preeti such as streedhan and claimed by her in her affidavit in India. In this regard, I am making an offer of settlement "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" to Preeti Kotwa This offer relates to all property including all issues raised by Preeti such as streedhan and claimed by her in her affidavit in India. This offer is being submitted by me through the Family Court of AUSTRALIA, Parramatta to Preeti Kotwal who will be required to indicate the response to me through the Family Court in Australia". (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid offer made by respondent No. 2 Mr. Hudlikar submits that if the petitioner would accept the same for and on behalf of Preeti, no further grievance would survive in the petition. 5. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a power of attorney holder of Preeti and she is willing to settle the matter for and on behalf of Preeti in terms of the offer made by Harish, respondent No. 2 in his letter dated 21.1.1994 as mentioned hereinabove, provided it is made clear that the offer applies to entire streedhan property claimed by the petitioner wherever it may be situated whether in India or Australia or elsewhere and that the settlement would be governed by the Indian Law and the respondent No. 2 shall not claim anything adversely thereto on the basis of law prevailing and applicable in Australia Hudlikar, submitted that the offer made by respondent No. 2 in his letter is quite clear and implies both the above assurances sought by Mr. Chitnis in much as the offer relates to all property including all issues raised by Preeti such as 'streedhan' and as claimed by her in her affidavit 'in India'. Mr. Chitnis submits that the petitioner is interested in claiming only streedhan of Preeti and that is the only subject matter of the present petition. 6. The copy of the said letter authenticated by Mrs. Kanetkar, advocate as a true copy of the original received by her is taken on record and marked annexure 1' to this order Mrs. Kanetkar has produced for my perusal original letter-bearing signature of respondent No. 2 and the same has also been shown to Mr. Chitnis Mr. Hudlikar also places on record a letter received from "HUNT MUSGRAVB PEACH" Solicitors from Australia addressed to Mrs. Kanetkar has produced for my perusal original letter-bearing signature of respondent No. 2 and the same has also been shown to Mr. Chitnis Mr. Hudlikar also places on record a letter received from "HUNT MUSGRAVB PEACH" Solicitors from Australia addressed to Mrs. Neelima Kanetkar stating that they represent Harish Kotwal in court proceedings of Family Court at Australia at Parramatta and that the matter is set down for final hearing for all property and custody for four days commencing from 15th February 1994. In his letter dated 21.1.1994, the respondent to. 2 has confirmed that M/s. Hunt Musgrave and Peach are representing him in the property settlement case. The letter is marked Annexure 2' to this order. 8. Mr. Chitnis states on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner accepts the offer contained in the letter of respondent No.2 as set out hereinabove only as regards streedhan which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Mr. Chitnis, however submits that respondent No. 2 should not raise any dispute in regard to the streedhan on the basis of Australian Law and the petitioner accepts the offer subject thereto. As already stated according to Mr. Hudlikar the offer contained in the letter of respondent No. 2 clearly implies to that effect. It is, therefore, made clear that the respondent No. 2 shall not travel beyond the offer contained in his letter as has been understood by the Counsel and so stated before the Court as already noted. It is clarified that this order is confined to the streedhan only and any other property covered by the offer of Respondent No.2 is not the subject matter of this order. Mr. chitnis states that in view of the present order, the petitioner does not desire to proceed with the complaint and the same may be dismissed. The complainant is present in Court in person and confirms. 9. Accordingly subject to what is recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn and the criminal complaint No. 162/ Misc./92 pending in the 21st Court, Metropolitan Court, Bandra against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 including all miscellaneous proceedings arising out of that complaint and pending is dismissed. 10. 9. Accordingly subject to what is recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn and the criminal complaint No. 162/ Misc./92 pending in the 21st Court, Metropolitan Court, Bandra against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 including all miscellaneous proceedings arising out of that complaint and pending is dismissed. 10. By consent of the parties it is directed that the Bank locker No. 6651E at the Bank of Baroda, Santacruz (W) Branch shall be opened in the presence of the petitioner and the representative nominated by respondent No. 2 and their respective advocates and whatever items of streedhan enlisted in annexure 1' at Ex. A to the petition if found amongst the contents of the locker these shall be handed over to the petitioner for and on behalf of Preeti towards the claim of streedhan in full and final settlement of the said claim of streedhan. It is made clear with the consent of the parties that if any of the items mentioned in annexure 1' to the petition or none out of them are found in the locker, that question will be governed by the statement made by the respondent No. 2 in his offer contained in his letter as set out hereinabove. 11. The list of streedhan articles annexure 'A' to Exh. A to the petition shall form part of this order as annexure 3'. 12. The Inspector of Police, Santacruz Police Station is directed to unseal the locker No. 6651E in the presence of the parties and/or their representatives and the Manager of the Bank as and when the parties make a joint application to him. 13. The Manager of the Bank of Baroda, Santacruz (W) Branch shall cause the locker unsealed and opened as directed herein in the presence of the parties or their representatives and shall also get an inventory prepared for his record, a copy of which shall be handed over to each party at their costs. 14. Inspector of Police and the Manager of Bank of Baroda to act on the certified copy of the order. Issue of certified copy expedited Annexures 1 to 3 to form part of this order. Writ Petition withdrawn.