Bombay High Court
Ganpat Kundlik Jadhav And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/4 Judgment WP-92-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.92 OF 2020
1. Ganpat Kundlik Jadhav, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
2. Kamlakar Bhikaji Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
3. Dashrath Baban Aher, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
4. Ramesh Sadashiv Jadhav, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
5. Ashok Bhivaji Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
6. Parshuram Nivrutti Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
7. Rambhau Nivrutti Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
8. Kailas Laxman Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
9. Vijay Keru Nathe, ]
Aged Adult, ]
]
10. Dattu Murlidhar Aher, ]
Aged Adult, ]
All R/at Gonde Dumala, ]
Tal. Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik ] .. Petitioners
VERSUS
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 08:56:32 :::
2/4 Judgment WP-92-19.doc
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Police Inspector, ]
Wadiwarhe Police Station, ]
Tal. Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik ]
]
2. Shantaram Sukdev Kajale, ]
Aged Adult, Occ. Service, ]
R/at Row House No.5, ]
Kailas Garden, PathardiPhata, ]
Nashik ] .. Respondents
Mr.Sachin Gite for the Petitioners.
Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh i/b Mr.Yatin S. Kochare
for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in person.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 11th FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent
Nos.2 submit that parties have amicably settled the dispute and have
entered into compromise terms. The comprise terms, signed by the
petitioners and respondent No.2, are placed on record.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present before this Court. He
states that it is his voluntary act to enter into settlement and pray for
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 Judgment WP-92-19.doc
quashing of the charge-sheet. The parties are identified by their
respective counsels.
4. In view of the settlement between the parties, respondent
No.2 is not going to support the prosecution case and, therefore
chances of the petitioners would be remote and bleak.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh 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 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.
6. Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 Judgment WP-92-19.doc
settled the dispute, we are inclined to allow this petition as
respondent No.2 is not going to support the prosecution case and
chances of conviction of the petitioners would be bleak and,
therefore, continuation of proceedings before the concerned Court,
would be an exercise in futility.
7. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the said Court, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
8. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a),
which reads as under :-
"a] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside the charge sheet No.97 of 2015 filed by the
Respondent No.1 before the Learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Igatpuri, Tal Igatpuri, Dist
Nashik, in respect of First Information Report No.I-
93/2015, registered at Wadiwarhe Police Station, Tal.
Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik for the offences punishable
under sections 143, 149, 448, 323, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code on such terms and condition, as
this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper."
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
