Bombay High Court
Prabhavati Dayaram Kakade And Ors vs Swaroopa Santosh Kakade And Anr on 1 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant G.
G. Chandan
Date: 2021.02.01
Chandan 14:28:23 +0530 cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.256 OF 2020
1] Prabhavati Dayaram Kakade ]..... (Orig.Acc.No.1)
Age 68 years, Occ : Home Maker ]
Add/at, Room No.9 Nandu Kadam ]
Chawl, Jiwala Pada, Kandivali (East), ]
Mumbai : 400101 ]
]
2] Jayshree Rajesh Raval ].... (Orig.Acc.No.2)
Age 46 years, Occ : Home Maker ]
]
3] Rajesh Hasmukhbhai Rawal ]..... (Orig.Acc.No.3)
Age 46 years, Occ : Service ]
]
Applicant No. 2 & 3 residing at ]
H/2, Gokul Nagar II, Thakur Village, ]
Kandivali (East), Mumbai : 400101 ]
]
4] Suvarna Mahesh More ]..... (Orig.Acc.No.4)
Age 44 years, Occ : Service ]
Res/at, 33/34, Dhanrade House, ]
D.P. Road, Grant Road (W), Mumbai ]..... Applicants.
Versus
1] Swaroopa Santosh Kakade ]..... First Informant
Age 32 years, Occ : Service ]
Res/at Plot No.20, Sky Park ]
Colony, Bhosale Wadi, Kolhapur ]
Pin : 416003, Maharashtra ]
]
2] The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Sr. Inspector of Police ]
Samata Nagar Police Station) }..... Respondents.
lgc 1 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2020
Santosh Devram Kakade ]
Age 36 Years, Occ : Service ]
Permanently add/at, Room No.9, ]
Nandu Kadam Chawl, Jiwala Pada, ]
Kandivali (East), Mumbai : 400101. ]
Presently add/at, C/o, Mr. Ajay Naik ]
Kantar Global Delivery, Kalayaan ]
Centre 3rd Floor, 65 V Luna Road ]
Corner, Kalayaan Avenue, Brgy ]
Philippines ]..... Applicant.
Versus
1] Swaroopa Santosh Kakade ]..... First Informant
Age 32 years, Occ : Service ]
Res/at Plot No.20, Sky Park ]
Colony, Bhosale Wadi, Kolhapur ]
Pin : 416003, Maharashtra ]
]
2] The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Sr. Inspector of Police ]
Samata Nagar Police Station) }..... Respondents.
Dr. Samarth S Karmarkar a/w Dr. Sneha Goyal i/by Karmarkar & Associates for
the Applicants in both the Applications.
Ms. Ashita Sinha for Respondent No.1 in both the Applications.
Mrs. Aruna Pai, APP for the Respondent No.2/State in both the Applications.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on : 27th JANUARY 2021
Pronounced on : 01st FEBRUARY 2021
lgc 2 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
COMMON JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J)
1 Rule in both the Criminal Applications. Rule made returnable
forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2 Both the Applications arise from the same FIR, hence both the
Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3 The Applicant Nos.1 to 4 in Criminal Application No.256 of 2020
are the in-laws of Respondent No.1, and the Applicant in Criminal Application
No.184 is the husband of Respondent No.1 against whom Respondent No.1 has
lodged the FIR being No.98 of 2014 on 24/03/2014 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code at
Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.
4 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 jointly submits that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and to that effect consent terms have been arrived
at between the parties before the Family Court at Bandra. It is also submitted
by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants that in so far as the
lgc 3 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
Applicants in Criminal Application No.256 of 2020 are concerned, the charge-
sheet has been filed against them, and in so far as the Applicant No.184 of
2020, who is the husband of Respondent No.1, is concerned, the charge-sheet
is not yet filed.
5 It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that it
is the voluntary act of Respondent No. 1 to arrive at settlement and give
consent for quashing the impugned FIR/Chargesheet.
6 This matter was on board on 27/01/2021 for hearing. At that time
the 1st Respondent was present in the Court. She was identified by her
advocate. When we interacted with her , she stated that it is her voluntary act
to enter into the settlement and file the consent terms before the Family Court
at Bandra. She further stated that she has no objection for quashing the
impugned FIR and Chargesheet. In support of her aforesaid statements, she has
filed her affidavits in both Applications.
7 In paragraphs 3 to 8 of her affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 in
Criminal Application No.256 of 2020, she has stated thus :-
"3 The matrimonial discord between me and the Applicants
herein as well as my husband i.e. the Original Accused
No.1 vide the said FIR, Shri. Santosh D Kakade has been
lgc 4 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
resolved and accordingly we have filed the Petition
u/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing
Petition No.F-3118 of 2019.
4 The Respondent No.1 states and submits that, no fruitful
purpose would be served out if the prosecution against
the Applicants is continued but on the contrary, if the
prosecution against the Applicants is continued, the life
of the Applicant and the Respondent No.1 will become
miserable and the future will be at stake, as if it is, both
the parties decided and undertake to lead the further life
harmoniously and peacefully.
5 That, taking into consideration the future of both the
parties, we have resolved the dispute amicably.
6 That, I have no objection, if the said Application is
allowed and the case presently pending before the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate's 17th Court at Borivali,
Mumbai, bearing CC. No.2312/PW/2014 vide C. R.
No.98 of 2014 dated 24/03/2014 lodged with Samata
Nagar Police Station as against the Applicants herein is
quashed/Set aside.
7 That, I am deposing this Affidavit without any force,
fraud or coercion at the hands of the Applicants or any
person on their behalf and I am deposing it with my free
will.
8 I am swearing this Affidavit to support the Application of
lgc 5 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
the Applicants herein to quash the proceedings against
the Applicants herein, in connection to CC.
No.2312/PW/2014 pending before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate's 17th Court at Borivali, Mumbai."
8 In paragraph Nos.3 to 9 of her affidavit filed by Respondent No.1
in Criminal Application No.184 of 2020 she has stated thus :-
"3 The matrimonial discord between me and the Applicant
has resolved and accordingly we have filed the Petition
u/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing
Petition No.F-3118 of 2019.
4 The Applicant state and submit that, no fruitful purpose
would be served out if the prosecution against the
Applicants is continued but on the contrary, if the
prosecution against the Applicant is continued, the life of
the Applicant and the Respondent No.1 will become
miserable and the future will be at stake, as if it is, both
the parties decided and undertake to lead the further life
harmoniously and peacefully.
5 That, taking into consideration the future of both the
parties, we have resolved the dispute amicably.
6 That, I have no objection, if the said Application is
allowed and C.R. No.98 of 2014 lodged with Samata
Nagar Police Station Mumbai, against the Applicant
lgc 6 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
herein is quashed/set aside.
7 That, I have no objection, if the LOC, if any, issued
and/or pending against the above referred Applicant is
set aside and disposed of accordingly.
8 That, I am deposing this Affidavit without any force,
fraud or coercion at the hands of the Applicants or any
person on their behalf and I am deposing it with my free
will.
9 I am swearing this Affidavit to support the Application of
the Applicant herein to quash the proceedings against
the Applicant herein , in connection to FIR C.R. No.98 of
2014 lodged with Samata Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai."
9 In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation of FIR being CR
No.98 of 2014 lodged by the 1 st Respondent against the Applicants/Accused on
24/03/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 r/w 34 of
the Indian Penal Code at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai as also the
proceedings in connection to CC No.2312/PW/2014 pending before the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Borivali, Mumbai.
10 The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab
lgc 7 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence 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 resolves their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
the criminal case would put the 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. It is
further held that, as 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.
11 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the Respondent No. 1 is not going to support the allegations in the
FIR and further continuation of investigation in FIR being CR No.98 of 2014
lodged by the 1st Respondent against the Applicants/Accused on 24/03/2014
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 r/w 34 of the Indian
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 8 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
Penal Code at Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai as also the proceedings in
connection to CC No.2312/PW/2014 pending before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, 17th Court at Borivali, Mumbai would tantamount to the abuse of
the process of the Law/Court. Since the Respondent No. 1 is not going to
support the allegations in the FIR the chances of the conviction of the
Applicants would be remote and bleak. The entire dispute arose out of
matrimonial discord. In that view of the matter, both the Applications deserve
to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Application No.256 of 2020 is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a) and Criminal Application No.184 of 2020 is
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which reads thus:-
Prayer clause (a) in Criminal Application No.256 of
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to be quash and set
aside CC No.2312/PW/2014 pending before the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate's 17th Court at Borivali,
Mumbai, in connection to FIR vide C R No.98 of 2014
pending against the Applicants herein registered with
Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.
Prayer clauses (a) and (b) in Criminal Application
No.184 of 2020
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to be quash and set
aside FIR vide CR No.98 of 2014 pending against the
lgc 9 of 10
cri.apl-256.20&184.20.odt
Applicant lodged with Samata Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to be quash and set
aside the NBW and/or look-out circular, if any, pending
against the Applicant herein vide said CR registered with
Samata Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.
12 Rule in the both the Criminal Applications is made absolute to
above extent and, both the Criminal Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
13 All concerned parties to act upon an ordinary copy of this order
duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 10 of 10
