Sundareshwaran K (Suresh) Iyer vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 6536 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                               19_wp.1262.2021.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1262 OF 2021

            Sundareshwaran K. (Suresh) Iyer
            r/at H/9/7, Godrej Hill Side Colony, Vikhroli                         ... Petitioner
            (West), Mumbai - 400079
                              Vs.
            1) State of Maharashtra
            Park Site Police Station, Vikhroli, Mumbai

            2) Sangeeta Sundareshwaran K. (Suresh) Iyer                     ... Respondents
            practising advocate, r/at Mr.R.S.Soni, C-414,
            Golf Scappem, Near Sunny Estate, Chembur,
            Mumbai- 400071



            Dr.Uday P. Warunjikar i/b Ms.Asmita S. Jaiswal for the Petitioner

            Dr.F.R. Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State

            Mr.Anil Lalla i/b Lalla & Lalla for Respondent No.2

            Ms.Sangeeta Iyer, Respondent 2 - present through V.C.


                                                CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED: APRIL 20, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of

the parties and heard finally.

19_wp.1262.2021.doc

2. This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive prayer:

"a) that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No.365 of 2011, u/s 498-A, 406 read with 34 of I.P.C. in the interest of justice."

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably

settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms have been

entered into and are on record. It is stated in the consent terms

dated 5th January, 2021 that both the parties have agreed to

withdraw all allegations against each other and that they have

further agreed not to claim anything against each other after the

consent terms are executed. They have further agreed that there

will be a lumpsum payment of Rs.22 lakhs, which shall be paid by

the husband to respondent No.2 in three installments.

4. The parties are identified by their respective Counsel

appearing for them.

5. We have interacted with Respondent No.2 through video

conferencing and she has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter

into the consent terms and settlement. She has further stated that

her act to enter into such settlement and praying therein for

19_wp.1262.2021.doc

quashing the impugned FIR, is without any coercion. She has

stated, in our interaction through video conferencing today, that

she has received the amount of Rs.22 lakhs, as per consent

terms.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of

Punjab and Another1 has held that the criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a

different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the

offences 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, the

High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the offender and the victim,

the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

the criminal case would put the 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. It has also held that inherent 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

19_wp.1262.2021.doc

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.

7. Since the petitioner and Respondent No.2 have amicably

settled the dispute not only in the present proceedings but before

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai in

C.C. No.1022/PW/2012, Respondent No.2 is not going to support

the allegations in the impugned FIR and continuation of further

proceedings arising out of the said FIR, would be an exercise in

futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

8. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and

to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the petition

deserves to be allowed.

9. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) as

mentioned above. The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed off

accordingly.

     (MANISH PITALE, J.)                                  (S.S. SHINDE, J.)