Bombay High Court

Sampat Shankar Chavan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 December, 2021

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

                                     1               962 application 2521-21

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                962 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2521 OF 2021

              SAMPAT SHANKAR CHAVAN AND OTHERS
                              VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                 ...
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. A. V. Lavte
          APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
        Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. K. S. Solanke
                                 ....
                        CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                            SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
                                    DATED : 15th DECEMBER, 2021.
                                            ....

ORDER :

1. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at admission stage.

2. The applicants / accused are seeking quashing of Crime

No. 111 of 2020, registered with Police Station Wadwani,

District : Beed for the ofence punishable under Sections 143,

147, 148, 149, 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The

applicants are also seeking quashing of the proceeding bearing

RCC No. 23 of 2021, pending before Judicial Magistrate (First

Class), Wadwani, District Beed, arising out of the aforesaid

crime, on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable

settlement.

2 962 application 2521-21

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

incident had taken place on account of drainage of the water

running from the road in front of informant's house. Learned

counsel submits that the incident had taken place as of sudden

without any premeditation. Applicant no.1 allegedly assaulted

respondent no.2 and gave a blow of stone on her head. So far

as applicant nos. 2 and 5 are concerned, they are allegedly

assaulted the informant by sticks. The applicants and

respondent nos.2 to 4 are relatives interse and incident had

taken place on account of some previous boundary dispute

exists between them. Learned counsel submits that the parties

have arrived at amicable settlement.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the

applicants and respondent no.2 and other injured witnesses are

close relatives of each other and they are residing in the same

locality. Learned counsel submits that with intervention of the

elderly persons, relatives and respected persons from the

community, the applicants and respondent no.2 have arrived at

amicable settlement. Learned counsel submits that they have

long standing relations and to maintain good relations and

harmony in future, they have amicably decided to settle their

dispute permanently. They have restored cordial relations with

each other and they are also having a visiting terms. All the

3 962 application 2521-21

families have started to participate in the family functions of

each other. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2 has

fled an aldavit to that efect. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are the

injured eye witnesses and they have also fled aldavits stating

therein that they have no objection if the FIR and the

proceedings are quashed in terms of the settlement arrived at

between the parties.

5. We have carefully gone through the aldavits fled by

respondent no.2 and the injured eye witnesses respondent nos.3

and 4 respectively. Though we fnd that respondent no.2 has

sustained the contused lacerated wound at right pariatal region,

which is grievous in nature and further resulted into the fracture

of the right pariatal bone as shown in the CT Scan however,

considering the fact that the parties are residing in the same

locality and they are close relatives, we are inclined to accept

said compromise. It further appears that the parties have

arrived at amicable settlement.

6. 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 on the subject for

4 962 application 2521-21

quashing of the proceedings on the basis of settlement. Para

15 of the 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;

(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 nonccompoundable.

(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;

5 962 application 2521-21

(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 speaiing, 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 element of a

6 962 application 2521-21

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, fnancial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil favour 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

(ix) above. Economic offences involving the fnancial and economic wellcbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justifed in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity aiin to a fnancial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the fnancial or economic system will weigh in the balance".

7. In the instant case, even though respondent no.2 has

sustained a grievous injury, however, the incident had taken

7 962 application 2521-21

place on account of some trifing reasons and the same is also

private in nature having no serious impact upon the society.

Further as informed by learned APP for the State that there are

no antecedents of the applicants and no crime has been

registered against them at Police Station Wadwani.

8. Learned APP submits that the parties may be saddled with

certain costs since the charge sheet has been fled.

9. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down by

the Supreme Court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass