Bombay High Court
Amit Arvind Jain And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
932-CriAppln-532-2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
932 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 532 OF 2021
AMIT ARVIND JAIN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Patil Prakashsing B.
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.C. Bora
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 05th AUGUST, 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.
2. This application is filed for quashing of the criminal
proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 579 of 2016
pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Dhule on the basis of
settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2 have arrived at a settlement and in terms
of the said settlement, they have decided to end their relations
932-CriAppln-532-2021
permanently. The parties have filed RCS/HM/60/2021 for divorce
by mutual consent after settlement and the same is pending before
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal (MP).
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed a joint affidavit before this
Court. There is no possibility of continuation of their marital life.
Therefore they have voluntarily decided to get separated
permanently. They have also filed the aforesaid petition for divorce
by mutual consent which is pending before the Family Court,
Bhopal (MP). Learned counsel submits that the terms of settlement
are detailed in the joint affidavit. Respondent no.2 wife has agreed
to withdraw the various proceedings initiated by her. Respondent
no.2 wife also do not want to prosecute the applicants in R.C.C.
No. 579 of 2016 pending before the Court of JMFC, Dhule, which is
the subject matter of the present application.
5. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
6. It appears that the parties have arrived at a settlement and in
terms of the said settlement, they have decided to get separated
932-CriAppln-532-2021
permanently. We have perused the annexures and it appears that
application no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed the case bearing
Case No. RCS/HM/60/2021 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bhopal (MP) under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent. We have carefully
perused the contents of the joint affidavit. In terms of the
settlement deed, it has been agreed that applicant no.1 husband
shall pay total amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent no.2 wife
towards permanent alimony and future maintenance. In view of
that, the respondent wife has waived all her rights of maintenance
in future. In terms of the said settlement, applicant no.1 has paid
Rs.20,00,000/- so far to respondent no.2 and the balance amount
will be paid as per the settlement terms.
7. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Others ,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in para no.45 of the judgment, the
Supreme Court has frame guidelines. Clause (a) of the said
guidelines is important, which is reproduced hereinbelow :
"a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other
offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
932-CriAppln-532-2021
8. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another ,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, in para 15 the Supreme Court has
summarised the broad principles and in terms of clauses (v) and
(ix) laid down the prepositions which are reproduced
hereinbelow :
"(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) .....
(vii) .....
(viii) .....
(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"
932-CriAppln-532-2021
9. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily. They have decided to
get separated permanently and for that purpose, even they have
taken steps and filed the marriage petition for a decree of divorce
by mutual consent. Applicant no.1 husband has paid a substantial
amount to respondent no.2 for her future maintenance. Thus,
considering the entire aspect of the case and in view of the ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case cited above, we
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
I. Criminal Application No. 532 of 2021 is hereby
allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
II. Criminal Application No. 532 of 2021 is accordingly
disposed off.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
