Bombay High Court
Neeraj Vedprakash Saini And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2019
1. Neeraj Vedprakash Saini ]
2. Vedprakash Saini ]
3. Saroj Vedprakash Saini ]
4. Nilopher Sharma, ]
All residing at Flat No.602, ]
Pratamesh Building, Queens ]
Empire, Mira Road, Thane - 401 ]
017. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
2. Kanan Neeraj Saini ]
R/at., Flat B/507, Lilac Building, ]
Jhangid Enclave, Laxmi Park, ]
Kanakia, Mira Road (East), Thane ]
- 401 017. ] .... Respondents
...
Ms. Sunita S. Banis for the petitioners.
Ms. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
Ms. Deepa Premchandani for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in the court.
...
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 20:16:14 :::
2/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT:- [S.S. Shinde, J.]
1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
on instructions from the petitioners, seeks leave to amend the
petition.
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. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive
relief:
"b. That this Hon'ble Court to issue a Writ of
Certiorari/Mandamus and/or a Writ in the nature
of Certiorari/Mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order and/or directing calling
for the records and proceedings of the Petitioner
case and after going into the legality and
propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set
aside FIR bearing No.T118 of 2015 registered
Under Sec. 498 (a), 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC
with Navghar Police Station, Dist. Thane Rural
along with charge-sheet 2016 and Petitioner be
set at liberty."
AJN
3/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
respondent No.2 jointly submit that, the parties have amicably
settled the dispute. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
tendered across bar an affidavit of respondent No.2. The same is
taken on record. Along with the said affidavit, a copy of the
consent terms is annexed. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the said affidavit
in reply filed by respondent No.2 read as follows:
"1. That I am the Respondent No.2 in the
aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition (A copy of my
Aadhar Card bearing No.534722943600 is
annexed hereto and marked as Exh 'A'.)
2. I say that I am acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the said matter.
3. I say that I have arrived at an amicable
settlement with the Petitioners abovementioned and
filed consent terms dated 4th December, 2018 before
the Ld. Judge Senior Division at Thane in the
Marriage Petition No.167 of 2015. (A copy of the
said consent terms is annexed hereto and marked as
Exh-'B'.)
4. That I have no objection to the quashing of
FIR No.T118 of 2015, Chargesheet dated 2016 u/s.
498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC registered in
Navghar Police Station."
6. Respondent No.2 is present before this court. She has been
identified by her lawyer. We have interacted with respondent
AJN
4/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
No.2. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into the
settlement and give consent for quashing the FIR and the charge-
sheet. She has further stated that the consent terms have been
arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and the
same is filed in the Family Court, Thane.
7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 state that both the parties shall attend to the
proceedings before the Family Court on each and every day.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and in view of the fact that respondent No.2 has voluntarily,
without any coercion, entered into an amicable settlement and
they have undertook to convert Petition No.A/167/2015 to a
petition by mutual consent in the Family Court, we are of the
opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing
the pending proceedings arising out of FIR No.T118 of 2015 and
charge-sheet.
9. 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,
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
5/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
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.
10. 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 petitioners is bleak and remote and, therefore,
the continuation of further proceedings arising out of the said
FIR and the charge-sheet would be an exercise in futility and
would tantamount to abuse of process of the court.
11. In the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs
AJN
6/6 07 WP-823.19 (OJ).odt
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 petition.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b),
which is reproduced at paragraph No.4 above.
12. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
