Bombay High Court
Riyaz S/O. Sattar Shaikh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
cran2120.19
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2120 OF 2019
1. Riyaz s/o Sattar Shaikh
2. Laila Sattar Shaikh
3. Sattar Lalbhai Shaikh
4. Afsar Sattar Shaikh
5. Ruksar Rauf Shaikh ...Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Chandni w/o Riyaz Shaikh ...Respondents
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. R.D. Sanap
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S.D. Tawshikar h/f Mr. S.F. Patel
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 1st DECEMBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. Heard. Leave to correct the prayer clause "B" to the extent of
mentioning R.C.C. number.
2. The applicants-original accused are seeking quashing of F.I.R.
bearing No. I-512 of 2018 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. The applicants are also seeking quashing
of proceeding vide R.C.C. No. 119 of 2019 on settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2021 03:53:49 :::
cran2120.19
-2-
have arrived at amicable settlement on intervention of relatives and
elder members of both the families. The applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 have decided to live separate permanently
considering the bleak possibility of cohabitation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that due to
intervention of relatives and elder members of families, applicant
No.1 and respondent No.2 informant have arrived at amicable
settlement. Respondent No.2 has given Khula to applicant No.1 and
applicant No.1 has paid lump-sum amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees
Six lacs fifty thousand only) to respondent No.2 as maintenance.
Thus, respondent No.2 has no objection to grant relief for quashing
of proceeding.
5. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 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, State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2021 03:53:49 :::
cran2120.19
-3-
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:-
"48. .........
a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other
offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
7. Thus, the Supreme Court in para No.61 of the judgment in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) has
made the following observations:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus:
The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding
or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2021 03:53:49 :::
cran2120.19
-4-
and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no category can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, 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 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
::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2021 03:53:49 :::
cran2120.19
-5-
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. We have carefully gone through the affidavit in reply filed by
respondent No.2. It appears that the parties have arrived at amicable
settlement and decided to live separate permanently considering the
bleak possibility of cohabitation. Further, respondent No.2 has given
Khula to applicant No.1 and care was also taken to give lump-sum
amount to respondent No.2 towards permanent alimony. Thus,
considering entire aspect of the case and in terms of ratio laid down
by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass
following order:-
ORDER
I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B".
II. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
