Bombay High Court

Sagar Ishwar More And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 November, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                       1              Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


              CRIMINAL  APPLICATION
                                     NO.
                                        5946
                                             OF 2017
                                                    

     1.      Sagar Ishwar More,
             Age 23 years, Occu. Education,

     2.      Ratnabai Ishwar More,
             Age 45 years, Occu. Household,

             Both R/o Bhim Nagar, Chalisgaon,
             Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ...  Applicants

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra
             Through Police Station Officer,
             Chalisgaon City Police Station, Chalisgaon,
             Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 
     2.      Madhuri Anil Jadhav,
             Age 17 years, Occu. Nil,
             Through Guardian -
             Surekha Anil Jadhav,
             Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
             R/o Bhim Nagar, Chalisgaon,
             Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.  ...  Respondents

                                ...
     Mr. S.P.Brahme, Advocate for Applicants
     Mr. V.M.Kagne, APP for Respondent No.1 - State 
     Mr. A.R.Syed, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                ...

                            CORAM :        S.S.SHINDE AND
                                           MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 17th November, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 29th November, 2017

2 Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

JUDGMENT : (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :-

Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of learned advocate for

the Applicants, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State

and learned advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. This is an application invoking the inherent

powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code for quashing F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.136

of 2017 under Sections 307, 323, 504 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code registered with Chalisgaon City Police

Station, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate for the

applicants who has submitted that the alleged incident

has occurred as a result of the fact that the marriage

between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 was not

materialized since she was under age. The complaint

was lodged when Respondent No.2 was hospitalized

with the allegation that the applicants had administered

phenyle to her. According to the learned Advocate, the

3 Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

elderly persons from the neighbourhood have intervened

and have brought about an amicable settlement.

Respondent No.2 was provided medical treatment at the

expenses of the applicants and the dispute has been

amicably settled between the parties and thus making

the applicants to face the prosecution would be sheer

abuse of process of law and would be an exercise in

futility.

4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2

supported the submission of the learned Advocate of the

applicants and requested to allow the application by

quashing the crime registered with the police.

5. The learned APP requested to pass suitable order.

6. We have carefully perused the affidavits of the

mother of Respondent No.2 and also the affidavit of

Respondent No.2 herself. They have specifically stated

that they have executed these affidavits without any

influence and of their free will. They have stated that

they belong to the same caste as that of the applicants.

The applicants have provided the expenses of the

4 Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

medical treatment and they wish to maintain peace and

harmony in the neighbourhood.

7. In this respect, we deem it appropriate to refer to

the following observations in the case of Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in [(2012) 10

SCC page 303] held thus :

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences

5 Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In the light of these principles, if we examine the

matter in hand it is clear that the crime has been

registered as a result of some animosity being

harboured by the parties due to fall out of the marriage

between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 and since

they reside in the same neighbourhood. The dispute is

mere in the nature of a personal animosity. In our view,

to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of

the process of the Court and when the criminal process

that is to ensue would be a sheer abuse of the process,

6 Cri.Appln.5946-17.odt

we are satisfied that this is a fit case to quash and set