Bombay High Court
Rakesh Prakash Jain And Anr vs Shweta Rakesh Jain And Anr on 10 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 80 Cri-WP-144.21n.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.144 OF 2021
1. Rakesh Prakash Jain ]
Address at: 126, Ganesh Bhuvan/Zarine ]
Manzil, 1st floor, Caddle Road, V.S. ]
Marg, Opp. Jain Temple, Mahim ]
(West), Mumbai - 400 016. ]
2. Prakash Hukmichand Jain ]
Address at: 126, Ganesh Bhuvan/Zarine ]
Manzil, 1st floor, Caddle Road, V.S. ]
Marg, Opp. Jain Temple, Mahim ]
(West), Mumbai - 400 016. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Shweta Rakesh Jain ]
Address at: Shanti Nagar Society, C- ]
Wing, 4th Floor, Flat No.402, ]
Kondhwa, Badruk, Pune - 411 048. ]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Dahisar East Police ]
Station, vide C.R. No.80 of 2019) ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Vinod V. Kashid for the petitioners
Mr. Abdul Shaikh for respondent No.1.
Ms. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent No.2-State.
The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in the court.
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2021 21:45:00 :::
2/5 80 Cri-WP-144.21n.doc
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
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 No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the
father-in-law of respondent No.1. The present petition is filed by
the petitioners praying for quashing C.R. No.89 of 2019 registered
at Dahisar East Police Station under Sections 498(A), 406, 380,
323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioners.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.1
jointly submit that, the petitioners and respondent No.1 have
amicably settled their dispute and differences and have entered into
a Compromise Deed. Respondent No.1 has also filed an affidavit
to that effect. Learned counsel submit that in view of the
settlement, the petition may be allowed.
AJN
3/5 80 Cri-WP-144.21n.doc
4. We have perused the Compromise Deed filed by the parties
and also the affidavit filed by respondent No.1. In the affidavit,
respondent No.1 has stated that all the disputes and differences
between her and the petitioners have been resolved through mutual
consent and they have entered into a Compromise Deed/Consent
Terms. She has stated in the affidavit that the affidavit and the
consent terms have been made by her, without any coercion, undue
influence, threat and pressure. She has further stated that she has no
objection for quashing FIR No.89 of 2019 registered with Dahisar
East Police Station.
5. The petitioners and respondent No.1 are present in the court.
The parties have been identified by their respective advocates. We
interacted with respondent No.1, who stated that it is her voluntary
act to enter into the compromise and settle the dispute. She has
further stated that she has no objection for quashing the FIR.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and on perusal of the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 and in view
of the settlement arrived between the parties, we are of the opinion
that continuation of the further proceedings arising out of said FIR
No.89 of 2019 dated 26/02/2019 registered with Dahisar (East)
Police Station against the petitioners, will be an exercise in futility
and an abuse of the process of the court.
AJN
4/5 80 Cri-WP-144.21n.doc
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh 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.
8. Since the dispute between the petitioners and respondent
No.1 is a family dispute and they have amicably settled their
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
5/5 80 Cri-WP-144.21n.doc
dispute and in view of the fact that respondent No.1 is not going to
support the allegations in the FIR, the chance of conviction of the
petitioners is bleak and, therefore, continuation of further
proceedings arising out of the said FIR would be an exercise in
futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the court.
9. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and in order
to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process
of the court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, rule
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
10. Criminal writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
