Bombay High Court
Divyani W/O. Darshan Pagariya vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1
Cri.Appln. 1296-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1296 OF 2021
Divyani w/o Darshan Pagariya,
Age 26 years, Occu. Household,
R/o C/o Mangalchand Dalichand
Kankariya,
Durga Chowk, Chahardi,
Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon ..Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Dharangaon Police Station,
Taluka Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon and anr. ..Respondents
Mr Bhagarv Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr K.C. Sant, Advocate for applicant
Mr Anand S. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Mr N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2
-AND-
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 142 OF 2021
1. Darshanji s/o Sunilchand Pagariya
Age 27 years, Occu.Business
2. Aashabai w/o Sunilchand Pagariya,
Age 48 years, Occu. Household
3. Sunilchand s/o Punamchand Pagariya,
Age 52 years, Occu. Business
4. Damini d/o Sunilchand Pagariya
Age 25 years, Occu. Household
Applicants No.1 to 4
R/o Agnihotri Galli, Dharangaon,
Taluka Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon ..Applicants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Inspector,
Chopda City Police Station,
Chopda, Taluka Chopda,
District Jalgaon and anr. ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 03:51:41 :::
2
Cri.Appln. 1296-2021
Mr N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants
Mr A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Mr Bhagarv Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent
no.2
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 10th August 2021
PER COURT :
1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.
2. Criminal Application No. 1296 of 2021 pertains to quashing of the
criminal proceeding of Sessions Case No.17 of 2018 pending before the
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent
no.2 - Darshan Sunil Pagariya vide Crime No.91/2017 registered at
Dharangaon Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 307
and 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.
Criminal Application No.142/2021 pertains to quashing of the F.I.R.
bearing No. 127/21, registered at Chopda City Police Station, Chopda,
Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis
of the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - wife.
3. The parties have arrived at amicable settlement and thus, seeking
quashing of both the F.I.R.s in terms of the settlement arrived at between
them.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in both the matters
submit that the applicant - wife and the respondent - husband have decided
to end their marital life in terms and conditions as set out in the joint purshis
Cri.Appln. 1296-2021
submitted by them. The learned Counsel for both the parties have brought to
our notice that husband and wife have filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.
294/2019 for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalgaon. Further, it is agreed that the respondent - husband will
pay a lumpsum alimony of Rs.5 lakh towards the future maintenance and
accordingly, the applicant - wife has given up all her future claims. The
applicant wife has already received Rs.2,50,000/- towards part payment of
the sum agreed.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicants further submit that the parties
have decided to withdraw various proceedings filed against each other
including the present proceedings.
6. The learned A.P.P. submits that so far as Criminal Application
No.1296 of 2021 is concerned, the applicant - wife Divyani allegedly given
the blow of iron bar (Musali) on the head of respondent no.2. The learned
A.P.P. submits that in case of Narinder Singh & ors. vs. State of Punjab &
and anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed,
so far as the quashing of the proceeding on the basis of settlement for an
offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, it would be open for the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
charge under Section 307 of IPC. The Supreme Court has further observed
that if there is strong possibility of conviction, the High Court may not accept
the settlement and quash the criminal proceeding.
Cri.Appln. 1296-2021
7. We have carefully gone through the joint purshis filed by the parties.
As per the terms and conditions of the settlement, certain amount has been
given to the wife towards her permanent alimony and the husband and wife
have voluntarily decided to live separately. They have also filed Hindu
Marriage Petition No. 294/2019 for divorce by mutual consent under Section
13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
8. In case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, in paragraph 48 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has framed
the guidelines for quashing of the proceeding on the basis of settlement.
Clause (a) of the guidelines which is relevant for the present case is
reproduced hereinbelow :
"(a) Cases arising from the matrimonial discord, even if
other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
9. So far as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in a case of
Narinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. (cited supra) relied
upon by the learned A.P.P. for the State, we have gone through the police
papers, particularly the medico-legal certificate. It appears that respondent
no.2 - Darshan Sunil Pagariya (husband) in Criminal Application no.1296 of
2021 has sustained the simple injury. Both the parties have decided to
withdraw the criminal proceedings initiated against each other. In view of the
same there is no possibility of conviction. On the other hand, since the
parties have arrived at amicable settlement and decided to get separated
permanently, keeping those proceeding pending would nothing but the abuse
of Court process.
Cri.Appln. 1296-2021
10. In view of the above and in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in the above cited two cases, we allow both the criminal applications.
11. Criminal Application No.1296 of 2021 (Divyani w/o Darshan Pagariya
Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).
Criminal Application No. 142 of 2021 (Darshanji s/o Sunilchand Pagariya and
ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(A).
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( V. K. JADHAV , J.)
vvr
