Yashwant S/O. Ramprasad Varma And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8030 Bom

Order                                                                     apl677.17
                                       1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.677 OF 2017


        1. Yashwant s/o. Ramprasad Varma,
            Aged about 32 years, Occ. 
            Service.
        2. Ramprasad s/o. Shobharam Varma,
            Aged about 65 years, Occ.Nil.
        3. Fulesarbai s/o. Ramprasad Varma,
            Aged about 60 years, Occ.Housewife.
        4. Vijay s/o. Ramprasad Varma, 
            Aged about 31 years, Occ. Nil.
        5. Suresh s/o. Ramprasad Varma,
            Aged about 28 years, Occ.Service.

            All applicants 1 to 5 are r/o. Plot
            No.229, Sudama Nagri, Ambazari,
            Behind Bhaghyashri Apartment,
            Nagpur-440033.                        ...     APPLICANTS 


                    // VERSUS //


        1. State of Maharashtra,
            Through Police Station
            Officer, Ambazari Police
            Station, Nagpur.
        2. Vaishali w/o. Yashwant Varma,
            Aged about 29 years, Occ.
            Home Maker, r/o. Sudama
            Nagri, Ambazari, Nagpur.              ...     RESPONDENTS




        ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:18:40 :::
 Order                                                                                      apl677.17
                                                  2

                    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                   Mr.S.P.Sonwane, Advocate for the Applicants.
                                   Ms T.H.Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
                                   Mr.A.R.Tichkule, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                           CORAM      :   ANOOP V. MOHTA &
                                                           M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 11.10.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicants.

2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have

prayed to quash and set aside Charge Sheet No.67 of 2016

(Crime No.334 of 2015), dt.12.3.2016 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 294, 506(B) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal

Code filed by Police Station, Ambazari, Nagpur and pending

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.

3. It is submitted that applicant no.1 married with

respondent no.2 on 12th January, 2005. They have begotten one

son from the said wedlock. Applicant no.2 is father of applicant

Order apl677.17

no.1. Applicant no.3 is mother and applicant nos. 4 and 5 are real

brothers of applicant no.1. Since the last two years, applicant no.1

and respondent no.2 are residing separately due to matrimonial

discord.

4. Respondent No.2 lodged a report against the

applicants. Crime was registered against them for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 (B) r/w. Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet is filed

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.

5. Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindi Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by applicant no.1 for divorce

against respondent no.2. During pendency of the said petition,

applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 compromised the matter

before the Marriage Counsellor on 20.9.2017. A copy of

Settlement dt.20.9.2017 is filed as Annexure-3. As per the terms

of Compromise, respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw all the

Criminal cases filed against the applicants. It is, therefore, prayed

to allow the application in terms of prayer clause (i) of the

Criminal Application.

Order apl677.17

6. Heard Mr.S.P.Sonwane, learned Counsel for the

applicants, Ms T.H.Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent no.1/State and Mr.A.R.Tichkule, learned Counsel for

respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is present before the Court

along with her Counsel Mr.S.P.Sonwane. She has stated before us

that, due to misunderstanding, she lodged report against the

applicants. Now the matter is settled before the Family Court. As

per the terms of compromise, she does not want to prosecute all

the applicants. Therefore, it is prayed to quash and set aside

Charge sheet No.67 of 2016 (Crime No.334 of 2005),

dt.12.3.2016..

7. Offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(B)

of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable. In view of

compromise between the parties, there is no possibility of

terminating the proceedings into conviction. Respondent no.2 will

not depose against the applicants. In the recent judgment, Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017 [arising out of

SLP (CRL) No. 9549 of 2016] in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and

anr. decided on 4-10-2017 has laid down following broad principles

for the consideration of High Court to quash the First Information

Order apl677.17

Report/proceedings :

8.

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in

Order apl677.17

punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

9. As per the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above cited recent judgment, it is clear that, while quashing the F.I.R.,

the Court has to keep in mind whether any fruitful purpose will be

served by keeping the proceedings pending before the Court. Prima

facie, it is clear that parties have settled the matter and no fruitful

purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending. Hence, the

Order apl677.17

charge sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. is

liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. In view of above, we allow the Criminal Application.

Charge Sheet No.67 of 2016 (Crime No.334 of 2015),

dt.12.3.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

294, 506(B) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed by Police

Station, Ambazari, Nagpur and pending before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Nagpur is quashed and set aside.

No order as to costs.

                         (M.G.GIRATKAR, J)                    (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J)


        jaiswal