Bombay High Court
Manoj Hiralal Gupta And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath 1/5 (J)-APL-53-2021.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.02.04
11:51:58
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2021
1. Manoj Hiralal Gupta
Age- 40 Years.
2. Hiralal Chedilal Gupta
Age- 60 Years.
3. Nagindevi Hiralal Gupta
Age- 56 Years.
4. Dilip Hiralal Gupta
Age- 38 Years.
All Adults, Indian Inhabitants,
residing at Room No. 49,
2nd Floor, Building No. 31,
R.P. Nagar, Kshetrapaleshwar CHS,
Matuna Labour Camp, Jasmine Mill
Road, Mumbai- 400 019. ...APPLICANTS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Senior Inspector of Police
Shahu Nagar Police Station,
District Mumbai.
2. Sangeeta Manoj Gupta
D/o. Balchandra Jaiswal
Sindhi Camp, Bhau Daji Road,
T/70, Room No. 17, Sion West,
Mumbai- 400 022. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Jamshed Ansari, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A.S. Patel, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 (J)-APL-53-2021.doc
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 2, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 4, 2021.
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This application takes an exception to the C.R. No. 58 of 2018,
dated 28.02.2018, registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station, District
Mumbai under section 498A, 406, 354, 323, 504, 34 of IPC read with section
3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. The applicants further prayed for quashing and setting aside the
proceedings of Special Case SCST No. 100009/2018 and Special Case SCST
No. 100004/2019 pending on the files of Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Greater Mumbai.
3. Learned counsel appearing for applicants and Respondent No. 2
jointly submits that the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably
settled the dispute. The Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit and
additional affidavit.
4. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court. She stated that it is her
voluntary act without any coercion to enter into the settlement and give
consent for quashing the impugned FIR and proceedings.
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 (J)-APL-53-2021.doc
5. It is stated in the affidavit that the applicants and Respondent
No. 2 decided to take divorce with mutual consent and already the
proceedings are instituted before the family court, Mumbai. In the additional
affidavit it is stated that the 2 nd respondent had no intention to make
allegations which would attract the provisions of section 3(1)(10) of
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
and said allegations made in the FIR are out of misunderstanding and the
applicants had no intention to insult the 2 nd respondent. In view of the
averments made in the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is abundantly
clear that offence under section 3(1)(10) of Special Act are not disclosed.
6. Since the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled
the dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the
proceedings of Special Case SCST No. 100009/2018 and Special Case SCST
No. 100004/2019 pending on the files of Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Greater Mumbai arising out of C.R. No. 58 of 2018 registered with
Shahu Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The continuation of further
proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 58 of 2018, would be an exercise in
futility.
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 (J)-APL-53-2021.doc
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh 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 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.
8. In the light of discussion of discussion in foregoing paragraphs,
in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 (J)-APL-53-2021.doc
the Court, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following
order:-
ORDER
A) The application is allowed.
B) The proceedings of Special Case SCST No. 100009/2018
and Special Case SCST No. 100004/2019 pending on the
files of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Greater
Mumbai arising out of C.R. No. 58 of 2018 dated
28.02.2018 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai, is hereby quashed and set aside.
C) Rule made absolute to above extent. The application stands
disposed of accordingly.
D) The parties shall strictly abide by the consent terms and
extend full co-operation to the Family Court for early
disposal of the pending proceedings initiated before the
concerned court.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
