Bombay High Court
Manish Dnyaneshwar Baviskar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
960-appln-1541-20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2021
1. Manish Dnyaneshwar Baviskar
Age : 34 Years, Occu: Services
Presnetly R/o. Pasadena, TX USA
Through his General Power of Attorney Holder
Smt. Jyoti Adhar Chaudhari
Age: 57 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Keshav Nagar, Amalner,
Taluka Amalner, Disrict Jalgaon. ... Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Ramanand Police Station,
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Sayali Manish Baviskar @
SayaliDinesh Chaudhari
Age: 26 years, Occu: Household
R/o C/o Dinesh Namdeorao Chaudhari
Shiv Colony, Plot No.45, Gat No.55,
Ramanand Nagar, Jalgaon,
Taluka & District Jalgaon. ... Respondents
....
Mr. Girsih S. Rane, Advocate for the Applicant
Ms. Preeti V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 / State
Mr. R.R. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2021
1 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
FINAL ORDER:-
1. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits an affidavit-in-
reply of respondent no.2. The same is taken on record. A copy is
already given to the counsel appearing for the applicant.
2. With consent of the parties heard finally, at admission stage.
3. This criminal application is filed for quashing of the criminal
proceedings on settlement.
4. The applicant is the accused in connection with F.I.R. / crime
no. 192 of 2020 (at present RCC No.243 of 2021) for having
committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406,
323, 504, 506, 507, 510 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant-
husband and respondent no.2-wife have arrived at an amicable
settlement and in terms of the settlement, they have obtained the
decree of divorce by mutual consent. They have decided to end their
marital ties amicably.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the parties
have arrived at an amicable settlement. He submits that respondent
no.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply to that effect. Learned counsel
2 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
submits that this Court has already quashed the F.I.R. and the charge-
sheet filed against original accused nos. 2 to 10 by allowing criminal
application no.1120 of 2020. Learned counsel submits that in terms
of the settlement, the applicant and respondent no.2 had filed H.M.P.
bearing no.152 of 2020 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. The
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Amalner by judgment and
order dated 08.06.2021 has allowed the said H.M.P. and dissolved
the marriage by mutual consent.
7. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent no.1 /
State.
8. In case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in para 48, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has referred the observations made in case of Kulwinder
Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr , in which a five Judge
Bench of the Punjab and Harayana High Court has framed the
guidelines, and the guideline (a) is relevant for the present
discussion, which is reproduced as under:
"(a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord,even if
other offences are introduced for aggravation of the
case.
3 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
9. In case of Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and
others reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, in para no.15, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has summarised the broad principles which emerge
from the precedents for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of
settlement. Para 15 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"15. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions :
(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
4 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
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 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
5 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
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."
10. In the instant case, we are satisfied that the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily and in terms of the
settlement, the parties had approached the Civil Court for obtaining
a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and accordingly by order
6 of 7
960-appln-1541-20
dated 08.06.2021, the Civil Court has granted a decree of divorce on
mutual consent. It further appears that this Court by order dated
26.04.2021 in criminal application no.1120 of 2020 has already
quashed the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings against the original
accused nos. 2 to 10. It appears that the parties have decided to end
their marital ties permanently.
11. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case and in terms of
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause 'A'.
(ii) The criminal application is accordingly disposed of.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] [ V. K. JADHAV ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S.P. Rane
7 of 7
