Bombay High Court
Amit Ramesh Ahirrao And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2021
AMIT RAMESH AHIRRAO AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Arun S. Shejwal
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. R. Kawre
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.
2. This application is filed for quashing of the criminal
proceedings on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the
parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2 have arrived at an amicable settlement
and in terms of the said settlement, applicant no.1 and respondent
no.2 have also filed a mutual consent divorce petition under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Petition No.
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:59:44 :::
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-2-
A-71 of 2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad
and by judgment and decree dated 07.11.2020, the Family Court
has passed the order of dissolution of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent
no.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect. Applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2 have filed a mutual consent divorce petition
bearing No. A-71 of 2018 and the Family Court has passed a decree
on 07.11.2020. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has no
objection for quashing of the charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 720
of 2019 pending before the J.M.F.C. at Aurangabad.
5. We have also heard learned counsel for the respondent State.
6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court in para 48 has
quoted para 21 of the judgment of the five-Judge Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769. The five-Judge Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by
placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme court in the
cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551,
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:59:44 :::
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-3-
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, Simrikhia v. Dolley
Mukherjee (1990) 2 SCC 437, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
(2003) 4 SCC 675 and Ram Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1999) 2 SCC 213, has framed the guidelines for quashing of the
criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement. Clause (a) of the
said guidelines is relevant which is reproduced herein below :
"a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other
offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
7. 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;
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:59:44 :::
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-4-
(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 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
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:59:44 :::
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-5-
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a 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 above;
(ix) 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."
8. In the instant case, the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement and also obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage on
the basis of mutual divorce petition file under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit to
that effect. Thus considering the entire aspect of the case and since
it is a matrimonial dispute, we proceed to pass the following order:
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:59:44 :::
943-CriAppln-168-2021
-6-
ORDER
The Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(B) and disposed off accordingly.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
