Bombay High Court

Vivek Eknath Gorivale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 August, 2021

Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar

CRAPL571-2021.DOC
Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 571 OF 2021

Vivek Eknath Gorivale Age : 28 years
residing at Sunder Nagar, Balanigam
Road, Room No.108, Colaba Market
Mumbai 400 005. ...Applicant

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Senior Inspector of Police,
Mandanayad Police Station, District
Ratnagiri, Maharashtra - 413 624
2. Mahendra Narayan Sakpal
Age : 53, Occu. : Service
R/o. Suryodaya Co-operative Housing
Society, A Wing, Room No.303, Kurla
(West), Mumbai. ...Respondents

Ms. Prachi Khandge, i/b M. P. Vashi Associates, for the
Applicant.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.
Mr. Digvijay Patil, i/b Mr. N. V. Bhutekar, for Respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 present in Court.

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED: 23rd AUGUST, 2021.

JUDGMENT:- PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the

consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, ("the Code") is preferred to quash the First
1/6

::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 20:16:38 :::
CRAPL571-2021.DOC

Information Report No.26/2018, registered at Madangad Police

Station, at the instance of respondent no.2, for the offences

punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code, ("the Penal Code") and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the

parties.

3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:

(a) On 12th May, 2018, at about 7.30 am. while

respondent no.2 was on his way to Kulra from Dapoli in his

Maruti Zen car bearing registration no. MH-04/BK-3829, near

village Dhatroli, the applicant came in a high speed on a

motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-01/CE-7044 and gave

dash to the car. On account of the collision, the applicant

sustained injuries and the car was damaged. Hence,

respondent no.2 lodged report. On the basis of the said report

crime was registered at CR No.26/2018 leading to Summary

Criminal Case No.326/2018.

4. The applicant has approached the Court with the

assertions that during the pendency of the above-numbered

case the applicant and respondent no.2 have arrived at an

amicable settlement and the applicant has paid a sum of

2/6

::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 20:16:38 :::
CRAPL571-2021.DOC

Rs.10,000/-, to respondent no.2, for the minor damage to the

car of respondent no.2 in the said accident.

5. Ms. Khandge, the learned Counsel for the applicant and

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, make a joint

statement that the applicant and respondent no.2 have

amicably resolved the dispute and respondent no.2 has filed an

affidavit. In view of the said statement the learned Counsels

submit that the proceedings arising out CR No.26/2018

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned Counsel has tendered the affidavit of

respondent no.2. Mr. Mahendra Sakpal, respondent no.2

appeared before the Court. He stated that he has settled the

dispute with the applicant out of his own volition and

voluntarily filed the affidavit. He admitted the contents of the

affidavit and execution thereof. He is identified by Mr. Patil, the

learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

7. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit read as under:

"2. I say that, I am the victim as well as the first informant
in the CR No.26 of 2018. I have registered FIR bearing No.26
of 2018 dated 14/05/2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section
184 of Motor Vehicles Act for the incident of accident caused
upon me.
3. I say that, the dispute between me and the accused
have been amicably settled through a mediator. I hereby
confirm that, the dispute between me and the Applicant has
been already settled and the Applicant has paid me the

3/6

::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 20:16:38 :::
CRAPL571-2021.DOC
compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the damages caused to my
car. I do not have any complaints against the Applicant.
4. I say that, I did not suffer any physical injury in the
said incident. Therefore, I have no objection and I hereby
consent for quashing of the FIR bearing No.26 of 2018 and
consecutive Chargesheet and SCC No.326 of 2018."

8. It appears that the impact occurred in an unguarded

moment. Neither Respondent no.2 nor any other occupant of

the car has suffered any injury. There was a minor damage to

the car. The parties have resolved the dispute by quantifying

the costs for the said damage to the car.

9. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties,

which appeared to be free from any coercion or duress, the

continuation of the Summary Criminal Case No.326 of 2018

would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is very unlikely that

respondent no.2 would support the prosecution and it would

end in a conviction. On the contrary, the continuation of the

prosecution would cause serious prejudice not only to the

applicant but to respondent no.2, as well. It would also amount

to abuse of the process of the Court and put unnecessary

burden on the criminal justice system.

10. A useful reference in this context can be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another1, wherein the Supreme Court has

12012 (10) SCC 303
4/6

::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2021 20:16:38 :::
CRAPL571-2021.DOC

observed as under;

"61. ......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 offence
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 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."

11. The aforesaid pronouncement applies with equal force to

the facts of the instant case. The accident seems to have

occurred on account of an error of judgment. No serious injury

was caused to any person. Thus, in order to secure the ends of

justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, we are

inclined to allow the petition.

12. Hence the following order:

: ORDER :

(i) The application stands allowed.

(ii) Summary Criminal Case No.326 of 2018 pending on

CRAPL571-2021.DOC

the file of the learned Magistrate, Dhakadi District,