Bombay High Court
Yogesh Ramkisan Gadekar And Otehr vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 December, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
cran2415.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
60 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2415 OF 2021
YOGESH RAMKISAN GADEKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Dhawale Bhushan S
APP for Respondent-State: Mr.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.B. Jagtap
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 20th DECEMBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. The applicants are seeking quashing of the F.I.R bearing
crime No. 117 of 2021 registered with Hasnabad police station, Tq.
Bhokardan, District Jalna for the offences punishable under sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and also seeking quashing of
the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No 877 of 2021 pending before
J.M.F.C. Bhokardan, District Jalna arising out of the aforesaid crime.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties
have arrived at amicable settlement and in terms of the said
settlement, respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 (husband of
respondent No.2) have agreed to stay together for rest of their life.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent
No.2 has filed affidavit in reply to that effect. It is stated in the
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 04:50:29 :::
cran2415.21
-2-
affidavit in reply that there was love marriage between applicant No.1
and respondent No.2. However, due to certain misunderstanding,
they had started residing separately. After their misunderstanding
became clear, respondent No.2 willingly left her parental home and
has started cohabitation with applicant No.1. At present, respondent
No.2 is residing with applicant No.1 and she has no complaint
against applicant No.1 as well as applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
Respondent No.2 does not wish to continue with the prosecution or
the impugned report as she has settled the matter amicably with the
applicants.
4. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.
5. It appears that due to certain misunderstanding, the applicant
No.1 and respondent No.2 had started residing separately, however,
now they are residing together. Respondent No.2 has no complaint
against applicant No.1 as well as applicant Nos. 2 and 3. She does
not wish to continue with the prosecution.
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
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 04:50:29 :::
cran2415.21
-3-
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 :
"21. .....
(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
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 04:50:29 :::
cran2415.21
-4-
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
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2021 04:50:29 :::
cran2415.21
-5-
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."
8. It appears that the parties have settled their dispute amicably
and they have arrived at settlement voluntarily. In view of above and
the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in the above cited case, we
are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "B"
and "C1".
II. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
