Bombay High Court
Rajesh Deepak Tamore And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2021
1. Rajesh Deepak Tamore, ]
R/o. 210/7, Mangelwad, ]
Yogeshwar Mandir Road, Moti ]
Daman, Daman & Diu. ]
2. Hitesh Deepak Tamore, ]
R/o. 210/7, Mangelwad, ]
Yogeshwar Mandir Road, Moti ]
Daman, Daman & Diu. ]
3. Ganga Deepak Tamore, ]
R/o. House No.538, Mukkam ]
Post Gevali, Taluka Palghar, Dist. ]
Thane. ]
4. Deepak Baburav Tamore, ]
R/o. House No.538, Mukkam ]
Post Gevali, Taluka Palghar, Dist. ]
Thane. ]
5. Harishchandra Motilal Mangela ]
R/o. Mangelwada, Phansa, ]
Umargaon, Valsad, Gujarat. ]
6. Hiru Harishchandra Mangela, ]
R/o. Mangelwada, Phansa, ]
Umargaon, Valsad, Gujarat. ]
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2021 22:03:39 :::
2/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
7. Akash Harishchandra Mangela, ]
R/o. 210/7, Mangelwad, ]
Yogeshwar Mandir Road, Moti ]
Daman, Daman & Diu. ]
8. Yamuna Mangela ]
R/o. 210/7, Mangelwad, ]
Yogeshwar Mandir Road, Moti ]
Daman, Daman & Diu. ] ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Dahanu Police ]
Station.) ]
2. Divya Rajesh Tamore, ]
R/o. Nandalaskar Chawl, Dahanu ]
Gaon, Dahanu, District Palghar, ]
Maharashtra. ] .... Respondents
...
Mr. Durgesh P. Jaiswal with Mr. Harshal Damania for the
applicants.
Ms. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
Mr. Gulestan M. Dubash for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in the court.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
AJN
3/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
ORAL JUDGMENT:- [S.S. Shinde, J.]
1. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants prays for leave
to amend the application.
2. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants and
respondent No.2 have submitted that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that
effect. Paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the said affidavit read as under:
"4. I say and submit that the differences between
the Applicants and the Respondents have been
settled amicably without any undue influence,
coercion, pressure on me and I am giving this
Affidavit voluntarily and on my own will.
5. I say and submit that as the matter is settled
between the parties, I do not wish to continue
pursuing C.R. No.I-100 of 2019 dated 30th June
2019 registered with Dahanu Police Station for
offences punishable u/s. 498A, 420 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. I say and submit that I have no objection if this
Hon'ble Court allows the present Criminal
Application of the Applicants and the said C.R.
AJN
4/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
No.I-100 of 2019 dated 30th June, 2019 registered
with Dahanu Police Station for offences punishable
u/s. 498A, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 against the Applicants is quashed."
5. Respondent No.2 is present before this court. She has been
identified by her counsel. She stated that it is her voluntary act to
enter into the settlement and give consent for quashing the
proceedings of C.R. No.I-100 of 2019 dated 30/06/2020
registered with Dahanu Police Station and R.C.C. No.309 of
2019 pending before the Civil Court, Junior Division, Dahanu.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and the fact that respondent No.2 has voluntarily, without any
coercion, entered into an amicable settlement, we are of the
opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing
the pending proceedings viz. C.R. No.I-100 of 2019 dated
30/06/2020 registered with Dahanu Police Station and R.C.C.
No.309 of 2019 pending before the Civil Court, Junior Division,
Dahanu.
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
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
5/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
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. Having regard to the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties and in view of the affidavit filed by
respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that the chance of
conviction of the applicants 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.
AJN
6/6 34 APL-47.21 (OJ).odt
9. 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
application. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (B) of the application, which reads as follows:
"(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly quash
Criminal Complaint being C.R. No.I-100 of 2019
dated 30th June, 2020 for offences punishable u/s.
498(A), 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 with Dahanu Police Station filed against the
present Applicants at the instance of the
Respondent No.2 and R.C.C. No.309 of 2019
pending before Civil Court Junior Division,
Dahanu."
10. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
