Bombay High Court
Uday Ulhas Dambe And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 17 APL-299.20 (OJ).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2020
1. Uday Ulhas Dambe ]
2. Ulhas Uttamrao Dambe ]
3. Vimal Ulhas Dambe ]
all R/o. Shivajinagar, Ward No.2, ]
Tal. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. ]
4. Ramchandra Vitthal Satre. ]
5. Shilpa Ramchandra Satre, ]
Both R/o. 701, Girija Neelkanth ]
Heights, Baramati. ]
6. Bhalchandra Sahadev Mohite ]
7. Shweta Bhalchandra Mohite ]
Both R/o. 1902, Pioneer, Opp. ]
Vartaknagar Police Station, ]
Baramati. ] ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Baramati ]
Police Station.) ]
2. Gauri Uday Dambe ]
R/o. Bhigwan Road, Shivajinagar, ]
Near JBS Township, Baramati, ]
Pune. ] .... Respondents
...
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 08:56:28 :::
2/5 17 APL-299.20 (OJ).odt
Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b Mr. Ateet Shirokdar for the applicants.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
Mr. Ritesh Ratnam for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in the court.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT:- [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 applicants and
respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms have been
filed before the Family Court at Bandra. Respondent No.2 has
also filed an affidavit about the settlement arrived at between the
parties. Since the said affidavit is part of the present proceedings,
it is not necessary to reproduce the contentions of the said
affidavit. Suffice it to state that the parties have arrived at an
amicable settlement and consent terms have been filed before the
Family Court at Bandra.
3. Respondent No.2 is present before this court. She has been
AJN
3/5 17 APL-299.20 (OJ).odt
identified by her counsel. We have interacted with her. She has
stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into the settlement and
give consent for quashing the FIR.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It
is true that some of the offences are serious in nature but the fact
remains that the entire dispute arise out of a matrimonial discord
and in view of 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 arising out of the said FIR
and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. It is informed by learned counsel appearing for the
applicants that one of the terms of settlement is that the
applicants shall pay an amount of Rs.37 lakhs to respondent No.2
towards full and final settlement, out of which, an amount of
Rs.11 lakhs is already paid to respondent No.2 by Demand Draft
and the remaining amount of Rs.26 lakhs is deposited with the
Magistrate Court, Pune. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
does not dispute the said statement.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & Anr.1 has held that the criminal cases having
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
4/5 17 APL-299.20 (OJ).odt
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.
7. Having regard to the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties and that the consent terms have been filed
before the Family Court, Bandra and in view of the fact that
respondent No.2 has decided not to participate in the criminal
proceedings, we are of the opinion that the chance of conviction
of the applicants is bleak and remote and, therefore, the
AJN
5/5 17 APL-299.20 (OJ).odt
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.
8. 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 (a) of the application, which reads as follows:
"(B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
quash and set aside the C.R. No. C.R. No.I-280 of
2017 dated 26.04.2017 registered with Baramati
Police Station, Baramati for offences punishable
under sections 376, 377, 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/
w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the
Chargesheet pending before the Ld. Addl.
Sessions Baramati, at Baramati in R.C.C. No.564
of 2017."
9. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
10. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
