Bombay High Court
Raju Raya Kamath vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/4 Judgment WP-214-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.214 OF 2021
1. Raju Raya Kamath, ]
Age : 33 Years, Occ : Service, ]
Having address at Sai Apartment, ]
B/10/18, Room No.2, Sector-3, ]
C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai -400614 ] .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Vartak Nagar Police Station, ]
Through Ld. Public Prosecutor ]
]
2. Kamaljeet Hardevsingh Sahani ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant, Age - 32 ]
Occupation -Service ]
Residing : Room No.105, ]
Ishwarti Puja Apts., Vartak Nagar, ]
Near Shiv Sena Off. ]
Thane (W)- 400606 ] .. Respondents
Mr.Mikhail Dey for the Petitioner.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.B.J.Dubey for Respondent No.2.
Mrs.Kamaljeet H. Sahani-Respondent No.2 present in Court.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27TH JANUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 03RD FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 20:15:29 :::
2/4 Judgment WP-214-21.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioner approached this Court by way of the present
writ petition, seeking quashing of C.R. No.I-29 of 2010 whereby
offence was registered against the petitioner under Sections 448,
324, 309 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 371
and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. It is stated in the petition itself that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 (original complainant) were in a relationship for
seven years before the incident and that due to a quarrel and a small
fight between them, the incident took place at the residence of
respondent No.2.
4. It is stated that the parties have resolved their differences and
respondent No.2 desires to put an end to the said criminal
proceeding. It is stated that it was initiated in the first place due to
misunderstanding.
5. Respondent No.2 has also appeared before this Court. We
interacted with her and found that, she genuinely does not wish to
proceed further in the matter and that she has filed the affidavit on
her own free will and without any coercion. In her affidavit, she has
reiterated the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. It is
categorically stated in the affidavit that she unconditionally desires
to withdraw the case.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 Judgment WP-214-21.doc
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab 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 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, 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 has also held that 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.
7. Applying the said position of law and the material placed on
record before this Court by the petitioner and respondent No.2, it
becomes clear that respondent No.2 will not be supporting the
allegations and that the chances of conviction of the petitioner are
remote and bleak. Consequently, continuation of further
proceedings in pursuance of the C.R. No.I-29 of 2010 would serve
no purpose. The nature of complaint and allegations raised on
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 Judgment WP-214-21.doc
behalf of respondent No.2 appears to be more of a personal nature
against the petitioner and since the differences between the
petitioner and respondent No.2 have been resolved, applying the
said position of law, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a), which reads as follows :
"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
certiorari or mandamus or any other writ, order or direction
calling for the record and proceedings of C.R.No.I-29 of
2010 of Vartak Nagar Police Station registered u/s. 448,
324, 309, 506 of The IPC R/W. 371, 135 of The Bombay
Police Act and upon examining the propriety, legality and
correctness of the investigation conducted so far, be pleased
to quash the said C.R. bearing No.I-29 of 2010 registered
u/s.448, 324, 309, 506 of The IPC R/W. 371, 135 of The
Bombay Police Act."
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
10. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
