Bombay High Court
Javed Riyaj Patel And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
943.1APPLN912.2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 912 OF 2020
Javed Riyaj Patel & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
.....
Shri. M. P. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants
Shri. K. S. Patil, APP for respondent / State
Shri. M. L. Hassan & Shri. N. S. Kadam, Advocate for respondent no. 2
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV &
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2021
ORAL ORDER : -
1. Heard finally with consent, at the admission stage.
2. The applicants / original accused seek quashing of the
FIR bearing no. 300/2019 registered with Nanalpeth Police Station,
Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961.
3. The applicants / accused are also seeking quashing of the
proceedings bearing RCC No. 665/2020 pending before the learned
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 00:04:23 :::
943.1APPLN912.2020
-2-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, arising out of the aforesaid crime
on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the
parties have resolved the dispute amicably due to the intervention of
the parents and the other elderly persons of the family.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that
respondent no. 2 - wife has filed affidavit to that effect. The meeting
was held on 07th February, 2020 at Parbhani, wherein it was agreed
by the parties to settle the dispute amicably. Applicant no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 got separated by Khula. Applicant no. 1 - husband
has waived his right of compensation from the wife and on the other
hand, applicant no. 1 has paid an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to
respondent no. 2 - wife. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.
2 received said amount from applicant no. 1 by cheque bearing no.
417626 of Bank of Indian, Branch at Pune.
6. It appears that the parties have arrived at the settlement
voluntarily and the care has also been taken to give certain amount to
respondent no. 2 - wife towards one time maintenance.
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 00:04:23 :::
943.1APPLN912.2020
-3-
7. 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 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. .........
"21. ... '(a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord,
even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case.
(b) to (f) ........
8. The Supreme Court in paragraph no. 61 of the judgment
in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) has made the
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 00:04:23 :::
943.1APPLN912.2020
-4-
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 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
SG Punde, PA
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 00:04:23 :::
943.1APPLN912.2020
-5-
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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. In view of the above settlement arrived at between the
parties and in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in above cited case, we proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
[i] Criminal Application is allowed in terms prayer clauses
'B' and 'BB' thereof.
[ii] Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ V. K. JADHAV ]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde, PA
