Bombay High Court
Chandresh Parso Mansukhani And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant
G. Chandan
G. Date:
Chandan 2021.02.08
12:00:58 +0530 cri.wp-1.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1 OF 2021
1] Chandresh Parso Mansukhani ]
Aged 39 yrs. Occupation : Service ]
Indian Inhabitant Residing at : ]
17250 Knoll Trail Drive, APT. 803 ]
Dallas, Texas 75248, USA ]
]
2] Parso Bhagchand Mansukhani ]
Senior Citizen, aged 79 yrs. ]
Occupation : Retired. ]
]
3] Jaya Parso Mansukhani ]
Senior Citizen, aged 70 yrs. ]
Occupation Retired ]
Both Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 Residing ]
at : 1304, Spectra C.H.S. Ltd. ]
Prathamesh Complex, Veera ]
Desai Rao, Andheri (W) ]
Mumbai 400 053 ]
]
4] Gitanjali Parso Mansukhani ]
Aged 42 yrs. Occupation : Doctor ]
Australian Citizen ]
]
5] Rohit Jaibhagwan Lodhi ]
Aged 44 yrs. Occupation : Doctor ]
Both Applicnt Nos. 4 and 5 Residing ]
At : 320, 2nd Street, Saskatoon ]
Saskatchewan, S7H 1NB ]
Canada ]
& Applicant Nos. 1, 4 & 5 Also ]
Having their Mumbai Address ]
at Address of Applicant ]
Nos.2 and 3 as above ]..... Petitioners.
Versus
lgc 1 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
1] State of Maharashtra ]
Through Amboli Police Station, ]
Mumbai, Its Senior Inspector of Police ]
]
2] Kratika Ashokkumar Khatri ]
A/K/A Kratika Chandresh Mansukhani ]
Aged 32 Yrs, occupation : Not Known ]
Residing at : 854, Badi Omti ]
Mirza Building, Jabalpur, ]
Madhya Pradesh 482 002 ]..... Respondents.
Mr. Nitesh V Bhutekar a/w mr. Ravi S Punjabi for the Petitioners.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Vijay Dighe for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on : 05th FEBRUARY 2021
Pronounced on: 08th FEBRUARY 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 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and to that effect compromise deed/consent terms
have been arrived at between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. It is
also submitted that Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 got
married on 30th July 2012 and they have been recently obtained divorce by
lgc 2 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
mutual consent from the Family Court No.3, Mumbai. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3
are the parents of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the sister and
brother in law of Petitioner No.1 respectively.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
that Petitioner No.2 deposited the balance jewelry of Respondent No.2 with the
Amboli Police Station. He further submitted that as per the consent terms,
Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the
2nd Respondents as the amount for one-time settlement, out of which Petitioner
No.1 paid Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the 2 nd Respondent
on 27/07/2020, and it was agreed between them that remaining amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) is to be paid by Petitioner No.1 to
the 2nd Respondent after quashing the impugned FIR No.381 of 2017, for
which amount the Petitioner No.1 has already handed over Demand Draft to
the 2nd Respondent.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that it
is the voluntary act of Respondent No. 2 to arrive at settlement and give
consent for quashing the impugned FIR/Chargesheet.
5 This matter was on board on 05/02/2021 for hearing. At that time
the 2nd Respondent was present for interaction through video conferencing.
lgc 3 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
She was identified by her advocate. When we interacted with her, she stated
that it is her voluntary act without coercion to enter into the settlement and
sign the compromise deed/consent terms. She further stated that she has no
objection for quashing the impugned FIR and Chargesheet. The 2 nd Respondent
has further stated that her jewelry is with the Amboli Police Station and, she
has received half of the amount as agreed between the Petitioners and her, and
she will receive the remaining amount after quashing the FIR and the
proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
6 In support of her aforesaid statements, Respondent No.2 has filed
her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 4 to 7 of her affidavit,
Respondent No.2 has stated thus :-
"4 I further say that I have settled all disputes and
differences between me and all the Applicants. I am
therefore ready to withdraw the allegations made
against all the Applicants.
5 I say that the said offences were complained against all
the Applicants out of the matrimonial disputes and
discord between me and the Applicant No.1, ex-
husband. I say that the Applicant No.1 had instituted
matrimonial litigation before the Hon'ble Family Court
at Bandra, Mumbai. The Applicant No.1 and I have
mutually agreed and put to rest all our differences and
lgc 4 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
matrimonial disputes to move on ahead in life and start
afresh. I say that the Hon'ble Family Court has been
pleased to grant Divorce by Mutual Consent on
17/08/2020 and that the same was based upon the
Terms of Consent dt. 03/03/2020 and the Addendum to
Consent Terms dt. 15/07/2020.
6 I say that all the disputes between me and the
Applicants have ended/been put to rest and that the
marriage between me and the Applicant no.1 stands
dissolved by mutual consent.
7 I say that both the parties have waited for long duration
pending the litigation/s and prior to us reaching the
settlement/consent terms/dissolution of marriage. The
differences between the Applicant and myself are purely
personal and matrimonial in the nature. There is no
offence committed as such against the society. I say that
the disputes between the Applicants and myself are full
settled, hence, I am filing this present affidavit as per my
own will and I give my consent to the prayers made by
the Applicants for quashing of the FIR No.381 of 2018 &
the said proceedings being PW/6602495 of 2019
pending before the Hon'ble Magistrate, Andheri,
Mumbai without any force and coercion. I say that I do
not wish to pursue any legal proceedings against all
(each and every one) of the Applicants in the subject
matter of the said proceedings being :W/6602495 of
2019 pending before the Hon'ble Magistrate, Andheri,
Mumbai.
lgc 5 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
7 Since the Petitioners and the 2rd Respondent have amicably settled
the dispute and the said dispute arose out of matrimonial discord, and in view
of the fact that the parties have already arrived at the compromised/consent
terms and, Petitioner No.1 and the 2 nd Respondent have obtained divorce by
mutual consent from the Family Court No.3, Mumbai, no fruitful purpose will
be served by continuing the further investigation in FIR No.381/2017
registered at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings being
PW/6602495 of 2019 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 66 th
Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
8 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 6 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
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.
9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations made in
the FIR and further continuation of investigation in FIR No.381/2017 and
proceedings being PW/6602495 of 2019 before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai would tantamount to the abuse of the
process of the Law/Court. Since the Respondent No.2 is not going to support
the allegations made in the FIR the chances of the conviction of the Petitioners
would be remote and bleak. In that view of the matter, the writ Petition
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-
(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present
application such that F.I.R. No.381/2017 at Amboli
Police Station and PW/6602495 of 2019 before the
before the 66th Court of Hon'ble Magistrate at Andheri,
lgc 7 of 8
cri.wp-1.21.odt
Mumbai be quashed.
10 The concerned Investigating Officer of Amboli Police Station is
hereby directed to immediately produce the jewelry of Respondent No.2 lying
with them before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who in turn,
after verification hand over the said jewelry to the 2 nd Respondent on the
application being filed by her. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate shall
ensure that the entire process is completed forthwith preferably on the same
day. The parties to abide strictly by the Consent Terms arrived at between
them.
11 Rule is made absolute to the above extent and, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 8 of 8
