Bombay High Court
Huzefa Hussain Ansari And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2021
1. Huzefa Hussain Ansari ]
2. Hussain Ahmed Ansari ]
3. Tahira Hussain Ansari ]
4. Hannan Hussain Ansari ]
5. Sumaiya Ansari ]
6. Arshiya Hussain Ansari ]
All residing at Flat No.6, Momin ]
Apartment, Nr. Malkani Tower, ]
Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai - 400 ]
102. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
2. Sr. Inspector of Police, ]
(Amboli Police Station). ]
3. Nurshaba @ Noor Saba Huzefa ]
Ansari ]
Presently residing with cousin ]
brother Firoz Khan, B-304, ]
Mayur CHS Ltd., Nr. Banegar ]
High School, Lodha Road, Mira ]
Road (E), Dist. Thane. ]
(In fact she is residign at Flat ]
No.402, B-17, Millat Nagar, ]
Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 ]
058. ] ... Respondents
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2021 04:00:49 :::
2/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
...
Mr. Ahmed N. Shaikh for the petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State.
Mrs. Shaheen Khan for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 is present in the court.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT:- [S.S. Shinde, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive
relief:
"(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ, order and direction, thereby
quashing the charge-sheet/F.I.R. No.365/2013
bearing C.C. No.801501/PW/2014 lodged in the
Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, pending before
Ld. M.M., 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai"
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
respondent No.3 jointly submit that, the petitioner and
AJN
3/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
respondent No.3 have entered into an amicable settlement and,
to that effect, an affidavit is filed by respondent No.3. Paragraph
Nos.2 to 6 of the said affidavit read as under:
"2. I say that there is irreparable breakdown of
marriage between me and the Petitioner no.1 -
husband and it is not possible to reunite hence, by
elder's intervention I and the Petitioner No.1 -
husband settled out grievances out of the Court and
executed Talaq-e-Mubarat (Divorce by mutual
consent) dated 02-11-2020 between us which is
permissible under the Muslim personal law and
Shariat. I and the Respondents above named
arrived settlement which is more particularly
mentioned in the Consent Terms dated 26-10-2020
annexed herewith as Exhibit "B".
3. I say that as my all the grievances has been
settled amicably by virtue of the Consent Terms as
stated above, I therefore, do not want to proceed or
to lead any evidence against the Petitioners/Orig.
Accused in C.C. No.801501/PW/2014 in C.R.
No.365 of 2013 registered by Respondent No.1 -
Amboli Police Station on my complaint.
4. I say that as stated above, all my grievances has
been settled amicably by virtue of the Consent
Terms dated 26-10-2020 arrived between me and
the Petitioners hence, I do not want to pursue the
aforesaid case bearing C.C. No.801501/PW/2014 in
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.365 of 2013 against the
Petitioners above named before Ld. MM., 66th
Court at Andheri, Mumbai.
5. I say that I have no grudge, grievances and
AJN
4/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
complaint remains against the Petitioners above
named. Hence, in view of the facts and
circumstances demonstrated above I most
respectfully submitted that the reliefs sought by
Petitioners below Writ Petition be pleased granted.
6. I say that I and Petitioner No.1 mutually agreed
and thereby separated from each other by virtue of
Talaq-e-Mubarat (Divorce by mutual consent) dated
02-11-2020 out of our free will, wish and consent
and not any pressure, coercion of undue influence."
4. The parties are identified by their respective lawyers. To
find out whether the averments in the affidavit filed by
respondent No.3 are made by her own free will or the said
averments are made by coercion and pressure practiced on her, we
interacted with respondent No.3. She stated that it is her
voluntary act to enter into the settlement and file the affidavit.
She stated that in view of the settlement, she does not wish to
pursue the pending proceedings or to lead evidence.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and respondent No.3 has voluntarily, without any coercion,
entered into a settlement and further she does not wish to lead the
evidence in the pending proceedings, we are of the opinion that
no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the pending
proceedings viz. C.C. No.801501/PW/2014 in C.R. No.365 of
2013 registered with Amboli Police Station.
AJN
5/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of
Punjab & Anr.1 has held that the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominately 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. Since the petitioner and respondent No.3 have amicably
settled the dispute and respondent No.3 is not going to appear
before the trial court and give evidence, the chance of conviction
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
6/6 06 Cri. WP-434.21.odt
of the petitioner is bleak and remote and, therefore, the
continuation of further proceedings arising out of the said case
would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of
process of the court.
8. In the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs
and in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse
of the process of the court, we are inclined to allow this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)
of the petition, which is reproduced in paragraph No.2 above.
9. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
