Hemantkumar Chhabildas Mahajan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 10481 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                           916_wp.1856.2021-J.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1856 OF 2021

            Shri Hemantkumar Chhabildas Mahajan &
                                                                                ... Petitioners
            Others
                               Versus

            The State of Maharashtra & another                              ... Respondents


            Mr.J.B. Pal for the Petitioners
            Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent - State
            Mr.S.S. Shirsath for Respondent No.2
            Respondent No.2 - present through Video Conferencing.


                                                CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATED: AUGUST 6, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRI S.S. SHINDE, J.):

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

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. This Petition takes exception to filing of First Information

Report No.346 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections

498(A), 354, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code registered with Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai.

916_wp.1856.2021-J.doc

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and

Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably

settled the dispute. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of

consent and is placed on record with the compilation of this Writ

Petition.

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

conferencing. She has stated that from the last four months, she

is staying with her husband and child in the matrimonial home.

She has stated that she has amicably settled the dispute without

any coercion and has no objection for quashing the impugned First

Information Report.

5. In the consent affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated

in paragraphs 2 to 8 as under:

"2) I state that, petitioner no.1 is my husband who gave me a promise and assurance that he is ready to stay separately and he wants to live his married life happily with me. Even he assures me in future without keeping anger and ego in his mind will not give me physical, mental and economical torture neither abuse me. Petitioner promised me that he will take care of me and my daughter properly and even our responsibilities, also promise to take care of all the necessary household expenses. But never demand money from me. Moreover, he also promised to me his entire family that is other petitioners in said petition will not interfere in my married life by using any reason. The petitioner already mentioned this in his petition para no.8.

916_wp.1856.2021-J.doc

3) I state that petitioner no.1 promised me that he will take care of all educational expenses of my daughter till her post- graduation of further study time to time.

4) I state that petitioner no.1 promised me that he will take care of all our medical expenses of me and my daughter time to time.

5) I state that, petitioner no.1 promised me that he will return my all STRIDHAN and my daughter's jewellery to me and never keep in his or his family's custody again.

6) I state that, petitioner promised me he will ready with any term and condition to stay together with me and our daughter and being as husband and father promised that he will take care of all responsibility with taking consent from me, petitioner no.1 booked a house on rent basis in kalwa at above mentioned address and made leave and license agreement for the same.

7) I, state that, petitioner no.1 has given assurance and promised to me on the basis of last chance if he will breach any condition or his any promised in future or if any member of his family that is other petitioners, then I can take legal action against him and other petitioners for the same.

8) I state that I have accepted his request as petitioner promised me on oath which is mentioned his petition in para no.8 and also because of my newly married life and my daughter's future and her bright career I am giving my consent to quash the complaint on 25/11/2020 bearing C.R. No.346/2020 is registered by the Rabale Police Station u/s 498(A), 354, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the said petitioners."

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and as

petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 are staying together since

916_wp.1856.2021-J.doc

the last four months and respondent No.2 has no objection for

quashing the First Information Report, no fruitful purpose would be

served by continuing further investigation of C.R. No.346 of 2020

registered with the Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai.

7. 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 is further held that as inherent 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

916_wp.1856.2021-J.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.

8. In view of the amicable settlement and willingness of

Respondent No.2 to give consent for quashing the First

Information Report, chances of conviction of the petitioners would

be bleak and remote. In that view of the matter and keeping in

view the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of

Gian Singh (supra), in order to secure the ends of justice and to

prevent further abuse of the process of the concerned Court, we

are inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under:

"a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.346/2020 dated 25/11/2020 registered by Rabale Police Station at Navi Mumbai. Annexed herein above as exhibit "A"."

9. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

10. Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

             (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                               (S.S. SHINDE, J.)