Sahil Lakshmanan vs Jayanand Janardhan Salvi And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 11761 Bom

                                                                              20-wp-2615-2021.doc




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      WRIT PETITION NO.2615 OF 2021

                   Sahil Lakshmanan                                    ...Petitioner
                             vs.
                   Jayanand Salvi and Another                          ...Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR            Mr.   Viral Babar, for the Petitioner
                   Mr.   Malhar Kadam, for Respondent No. 1.
Digitally signed   Mr.   K.V. Saste, APP for the State.
by VISHAL
SUBHASH            Mr.   Jayanand Janardhan Salvi, Respondent No. 1 present.
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.08.30
                                       CORAM :         S. S. SHINDE &
10:25:42 +0530


                                                       N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                                      DATE :             AUGUST 25, 2021
                                                  -------------
                   JUDGMENT:

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

of the counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred

to quash and set aside the C.R.No. 95 of 2021 registered with

Khar police station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under

section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and under section

134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 at the instance of

respondent No. 1- frst informant, on the basis of the settlement

arrived at between the parties.

                   Vishal Parekar                                                           1/6
                                                            20-wp-2615-2021.doc

3. The gravamen of the indictment of the petitioner is that in

the night intervening 1st and 2nd March, 2021 at about 00.45

hours while the respondent No. 1 was on his way to Khar railway

station, in rickshaw bearing No. MH-02-EW-6178, a motor car

bearing No. MH-03-DK-0601 came in a very high speed and

collided with the auto rickshaw. On account of the impact, the

respondent No.1 sustained injuries on his right leg. The petitioner,

who was on the wheel the said car, drove it in a rash and

negligent manner. The petitioner sped away without providing

medical assistance to respondent No.1 and apprising the police

about the accident. Hence, respondent No.1 lodged report at Khar

police station leading to C.R.95 of 2021 for the aforesaid offence.

4. Mr. Babar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Malhar

Kadam, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, make a joint

statement that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner

and respondent No. 1 have amicably resolved the dispute. The

respondent No. 1 has no objection to quash the proceeding arising

out of above numbered First Information Report. The respondent

No. 1 has tendered an affdavit in support of the prayer for

quashment.

Vishal Parekar                                                           2/6
                                                            20-wp-2615-2021.doc

5. The respondent No. 1 Jayanand Salvi appeared before the

Court. He claimed that he has settled the dispute with the

petitioner voluntarily. He has fled affdavit without any duress or

coercion. In view of the settlement, he does not wish to prosecute

the prosecution against the petitioner.

6. Para 2 of the affdavit of respondent No. 1 read as under:

I say that I have amicably settled the dispute with petitioner and I do not wish to pursue any legal proceedings against the petitioner in the subject matter.

7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission, statement and

averments in the affdavit of respondent No. 1, we have perused

the material on record. The learned APP has tendered a copy of

the injury certifcate. It reveals that the respondent No. 1 has

suffered simple injury. The respondent No. 1 informed the Court

that the injury has completely healed and he has not suffered any

deformity or permanent disability or painful consequences of the

said injury.

8. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that

the accident occurred in an unguarded moment. The learned

Vishal Parekar 3/6 20-wp-2615-2021.doc

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

adequately compensated respondent No. 1 for the medical

treatment and the loss of wages/income during the period

respondent No. 1 was under treatment. The learned counsel

further submitted that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.

25,000/- to the respondent No. 1 by way of additional

compensation.

9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settlement of the dispute

between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the continuation of

the prosecution would be a futile exercise. It is very unlikely that

respondent No. 1 would support the prosecution and it would end

in conviction. On the contrary, the continuation of the

prosecution, under such circumstances, would cause grave

prejudice to the petitioner and respondent No. 1. It will put

unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system. It would also

amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

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

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

State of Punjab1, wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

Vishal Parekar                                                                      4/6
                                                                       20-wp-2615-2021.doc

Court, considered the relative scope of the provisions contained in

Section 482 and Section 320 of the Code and exposited the power

of the High Court to quash the FIR or prosecution in exercise of

its inherent jurisdiction, as under:

"61. ................But 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 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, High Court may quash 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 criminal case would put 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

(emphasis supplied)

11. In the instant case, we fnd that the resolution of the dispute

between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is bonafde. To bolster

up his bonafde, the petitioner has agreed to pay an additional

amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1. Thus, in order to

secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of

Vishal Parekar 5/6 20-wp-2615-2021.doc

the Court, we are inclined to allow the petition. Hence, the

following order.

ORDER

i) The petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)

subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner to

respondent No. 1 through banking channel, within a period of one

week from today.

ii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

iii) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

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




Vishal Parekar                                                            6/6