Bombay High Court
Hitesh Ramesh Munot vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crappln240521.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2405 OF 2021
Hitesh Ramesh Munot Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents
Mr. V. A. Bagdiya, advocate for the applicant
Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. A. S. Shejwal, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 02nd December, 2021.
PC :
1 By consent, application is heard fnally at admission
stage.
2 The applicant-accused is seeking quashing of Crime
No.44/2020, registered with M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station,
Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also seeking
quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing RCC No. 565 of
2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Aurangabad, on settlement.
3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
{2}
crappln240521.odt
parties have arrived at amicable settlement and they have worked
out the terms of agreement as per the Consent terms dated
24th September, 2021 (Exhibit-B at page 18 of the present
application). Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant and Respondent No.2 have agreed to take all necessary
steps to withdraw all the allegations made against each other and
they have decided to separate permanently. Even Petition NoA-202
of 2019 fled for Divorce came to be withdrawn in terms of the
settlement arrived at between the parties and they have fled a
fresh joint Petition for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Petition No.F-265 of 2021. Learned
Counsel for the applicant submits that even care has been taken to
pay certain amount as permanent alimony to Respondent No.2-
wife.
4 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that
Respondent No.2 has fled consent affdavit. The applicant has
agreed to pay Rs.5,31,00,000/- (Rs. Five Crores Thirty One lakhs)
to Respondent No.2 towards one time full and fnal settlement of
her claim and even the said amount has been deposited before the
Family Court, Aurangabad, in the pending petition. It is agreed
between the parties that Respondent No.2 will withdraw the said
{3}
crappln240521.odt
amount after the decree of divorce is granted.
5 We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for Respondent
No.1-State.
6 We have carefully gone through the contents of
Consent terms and affdavit fled by Respondent No.2. It is clear
that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and
accordingly terms of the settlement are worked out. It appears
that they have agreed to withdraw all the pending proceedings,
including Petition No.C-13 of 2018, fled before the Family Court at
Aurangabad, under the provisions of Prevention of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Petition No.A-202 of 2019 for divorce,
fled before the Family Court, Aurangabad, Regular Criminal Case
No. 565 of 2020 in relation to present crime, and also Civil Writ
Petition No.14151 of 2019, pending before this Court.
7 It further appears that the applicant has paid
substantial amount of Rs.5,31,00,000/- (Rs. Five crores Thirty One
lakhs) to Respondent No.2 towards permanent alimony and also on
other counts, as detailed in para no.3 of the Consent Terms dated
24th September, 2021. It appears that care has also been taken to
{4}
crappln240521.odt
mention in the Consent terms that Respondent No.2-wife is
entitled to take all her belongings, as enlisted in para no.5 of the
Consent terms dated 24th September, 2021, which include various
silver articles, kitchen articles and utensils, etc. It, thus, appears
that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily.
8 In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in para 48, has quoted para 21 of the judgment of the
fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC
769. The fve-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
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
{5}
crappln240521.odt
settlement. Clause (a) of the said guidelines is relevant which
is reproduced herein below :
"21 (a) Cases arising from matrimonial
discord, even if the other offences are
introduced for aggravation of the case."
9 The Hon'ble 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 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
{6}
crappln240521.odt
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 fttingly 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 favour stand on 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 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
{7}
crappln240521.odt
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
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10 In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, we proceed
to pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause "B".
11 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V. K. JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
