Rahul Prakash Kale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 11670 Bom

1/6                                                    CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 2021
1) Mr. Rahul Prakash Kale,
Aged : 40 years, Occ : Nil,
2) Prakash Bhikaji Kale,
Aged : 69 years, Occ : Retired.
3) Sheela Prakash Kale
Aged 63 Years, Occ : Housewife,
All residing at Seth Narayan Park,
Room No.A/3101, Belpada, Road,
Sector-3, Opp- Kharghar Railway Station,
New Mumbai                                       ... Applicants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Sr. Inspector of Police,
Pantnagar Police Station vide their C.R.
No. 74 of 2019.
2. Mrs. Rajeshwari Rahul Kale,
Aged 35 years, Occ : Nil,
Residing at : B/3/12, Shriram Building,
Dexata CHS, E.E. Highway, Ramabai
Ambedkar Nagar, Ghatkopar (E),
Mumbai 400 075.                                  ....Respondents
                                      ****
Mr.Rahul Arote for applicants.
Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Prajyot Shrivastav for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present and interacted with the Court.
                                  ****
                 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                             N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
                 DATE      : 24th AUGUST 2021.

JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

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

Shraddha Talekar PS

2/6 CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc

of the learned counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

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

Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') is preferred to quash and set aside the

F.I.R. No. 74 of 2019, registered with Pant Nagar Police Station for

the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and

506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code')

at the instance of respondent No.2-Mrs. Rajeshwari Rahul Kale,

the frst informant, on the basis of settlement arrived at between

the parties.

3. The marriage of applicant No.1 and respondent no.2 was

solemnized on 27th April 2015. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the

parents of applicant No.1. In the wake of the marital discord, the

applicant and respondent No.2 have been residing separately since

17th May 2018. Respondent No.2 lodged a report against the

applicants with the allegations of subjecting her to cruelty in order

to coerce her to meet an unlawful demand of property and relieving

her of 'Stridhan', leading to registration of C.R. No. 74 of 2019.

4. Mr. Arote, the learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr.

Shrivastav, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 make a joint

statement that, in the intervening period, the matrimonial dispute

between the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 has been

Shraddha Talekar PS

3/6 CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc

amicably resolved. A petition for divorce by mutual consent under

section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is fled before the Family

Court, Bandra, Mumbai and consent terms have been fled therein.

In this application also, respondent No.2 has tendered affdavits.

5. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Court. Upon

interaction, respondent No.2 informed the Court that she has

decided to settle the dispute with the applicants voluntarily. In

accordance with the terms of settlement, she and applicant No.1

have fled a petition for divorce by mutual consent. In the said

petition, consent terms have been arrived at and pursuant thereto,

the applicant No.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-

(Rupees Eight lakh only) towards permanent alimony, out of which

she has already received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

6. Paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the affdavit sworn on 20 th July 2021

read as under :

"2 I say that the Complaint subject matter of the aforesaid crime was result of differences and disputes between myself, my family Members on one side and Applicant and his family members on other, out of matrimonial discords.

3 I say and submit that myself and the Applicant have cleared all our disputes and differences and settled it amicably. I say that we have also fled Petition for divorce by Mutual Consent before Hon'ble Family Court, at Bandra, bearing Petition No. F-1133 of 2021. I further say that Applicant have agreed to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as permanent alimony and out of which I have received Rs.6,00,000/-.

Shraddha Talekar PS

4/6 CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc

4 I say that I am fling the present Affdavit at my own free will and with complete consent of my parents and other family members. I say that no one including the Applicant abovenamed have infuenced me by any pressure, threat, duress and/or conspiracy so as to compel me to fle the present Affdavit.

5 I respectfully submit that my no objection to quash the C.R. No.74 of 2019 registered with the Pant Nagar Police Station as we have settled the dispute amicably and now we wish to live peaceful life."

7. As the FIR indicated that certain ornaments and articles,

which were allegedly entrusted to the applicants, were

misappropriated, the respondent No.2 has sworn an additional

affdavit. She claimed to have received all ornaments, except item at

Sr.No.6, i.e. one gold chain and ring, which were meant for the

applicant No.1 and she had decided to forego the claim over the

same. The relevant part of paragraph No.3 of the additional

affdavit reads as under :

"3.........I say that during course of settlement, I have received all above-mentioned ornaments except item at Sr.No.6 i.e., gold chain and ring (as it was meant for applicant No.1 and I have not claimed the same as it was for Applicant No.1), utensils and other household items from applicants and thereafter we have fled Petition for divorce by mutual consent in the Hon'ble Family Court at Bandra."

8. Evidently, the matrimonial dispute between the parties was

the genesis of the alleged offences. Eventually, with the

intervention of elders and well-wishers, the applicants and

respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the dispute. The have

Shraddha Talekar PS

5/6 CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc

decided to bury the hatchet. Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2

have agreed to part ways. Pursuant thereto, they have fled the

petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court and

the terms of settlement have been arrived at. It seems that the

dispute has been settled in its entirety. Continuation of the

prosecution, in such circumstances, would serve no fruitful

purpose. Respondent No.2 would not support the prosecution

earnestly. The possibility of the prosecution ending in the

conviction is extremely remote and bleak. Continuation of

prosecution, on the contrary, would cause a great prejudice to not

only the applicants but the respondent No.2 as well.

9. 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 observed

as under :

"61......... the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Shraddha Talekar PS

6/6 CRI-APL--587-2021-J.doc

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."

10. Applying the ratio in the aforesaid judgment to facts of the

case, in our view, the ends of justice would be secured and the

abuse of the process of the Court can be prevented by quashing

the FIR, in question.

11. Hence the following order:

: ORDER :

(i) The petition stands allowed.

(ii) FIR No. 74/2019 arising out of the offences punishable

under sections 498A, 406, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the

Penal Code and all the consent proceedings stand quashed

and set aside.

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]                                       [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]




Shraddha Talekar PS