Bombay High Court
Ashok Ottamchand Sutaria And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Sherla V.
4_wp.136.2021(J).doc
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date: CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
2021.02.08
12:51:39
+0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.136 OF 2021
1. Shri Ashok Ottamchand Sutaria
2. Shri Ottamchand nandlal Sutaria
3. Shri Bharat Ottamchand Sutaria
... Petitioners
4. Smt.Vibha Jatin Sutaria
5. Shri Harikrishna C. Mthani
6. Smt.Sunita Harikrishna Mithani
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
... Respondents
2. Smt.Manisha Dipal Desai
Mrs.Anushka A. Shreshtha for the Petitioners
Ms.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent - State
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 5, 2021
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: FEBRUARY 08, 2021
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties and heard finally.
2. This petition is filed for the following substantive prayer
clause:
4_wp.136.2021(J).doc
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set
aside the FIR No.190 of 2013, registered by Pant Nagar
Police Station Mumbai, under section 498(A), 406, 114, 504,
34 of Indian Penal Code dated 08.05.2013 and criminal case
bearing C.C. no.226/PW/2014, pending before Ld.73rd
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai and
further be pleased to discharge the Petitioners from Criminal
Case bearing No.226/PW/2014 pending before ld. 73 rd
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, under
section 498(A), 406, 114, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code."
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State.
4. Respondent No.2 i.e., complainant, has filed an affidavit on
22nd January, 2021. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is as
under:
"1. ...
2. I say that as the Petitioner No.1 and I have entered into
a compromise/settlemetn between ourselves upon the
intervention of the family friends, relatives and well-wishers
of both of us, we have filed consent terms before the
Ld.Family Court of Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No.B-55 of
2019 filed by the Petitioner No.1 for declaration of status of
Petitioner No.1 and we have agreed to go for compromise
decree as per the terms and conditions filed in Petition No.B-
55 of 2019 on 5-11-2020.
3. I say that in view of settlement arrived between me and
the Petitioner No.1, I do not want to proceed with the FIR
C.R. No.190 of 2013 dated 08-05-2013, registered at
Pantnagar Police station, Mumbai, for offence under
Sections 498(A), 406, 114, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4_wp.136.2021(J).doc
4. I say that I have already received sum of
Rs.21,91,000/- from the Petitioner No.1 and in addition the
Petitioner No.1 will hand over the Demand Draft bearing
No.158652 dated 4-11-2020, for sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drwn
on State Bank of india, Ghatkopar (west) branch, to me on
the day of decree before ld. Family Court at Bandra,
Mumbai. Apart from the aforesaid total sum of
Rs.36,91,000/-, I have no claim of whatsoever nature.
5. I say that I have "No Objection" to quash the FIR
No.190 of 2013 dated 08-05-2013 registered at pantnagar
Police Station, Mumbai, for offence under Sections 498(A),
406, 114, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal
Case bearing C.C. No.226/PW/2014 pending before Ld.73
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai.
6. ...
7. ...."
5. We have carefully perused the averments in the affidavit
filed by Respondent No. 2, which are reproduced hereinabove.
We have interacted with Respondent No.2, through video
conferencing. She has stated that she has no objection to quash
the F.I.R. in question as the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement of the dispute that arose out of matrimonial discord.
6. 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
4_wp.136.2021(J).doc
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 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.
7. In the present case also, it is clear from the averments made
in the affidavit of Respondent No.2 and the interaction we had with
Respondent No.2 that she is not going to support the case of the
prosecution and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.
4_wp.136.2021(J).doc
In that view of the matter, continuation of the criminal proceedings
on the basis of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility
and it would be an abuse of process of Court.
8. Hence, we allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (a),
which is reproduced hereinabove. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
9. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
10. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
