Bombay High Court
Dareppa Madappa Karle And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 WP-661-21 (OJ).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.661 OF 2021
1. Dareppa Madappa Karle
2. Madappa Dareppa Karle
3. Mangal Madappa Karle
4. Nagesh Madappa Karle
All are R/o Isargunde Wasti,
Sakhar Karkhana Kumbhari,
Tal.South Solapur
District : Solapur .. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
At the instance of Valsang
Police Station, Solapur Rural
Solapur
(C.R.No.140 of 2019)
Notice to be served on the A.P.P.
High Court, Mumbai.
2. Vaishali Dareppa Karle,
R/o. Isargunde Wasti,
Sakhar Karkhana Kumbhari,
Tal. South Solapur,
District Solapur. .. Respondents
Mr.Ramdas H. Patel for the Petitioners.
Mr.Tushar L. Pimple for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in Court.
Petitioner No.1 present in Court.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 20:16:10 :::
2/5 WP-661-21 (OJ).doc
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 15TH 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
No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the
dispute. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, has
tendered across the bar, affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2.
Same is taken on record.
3. Para Nos.1 to 6 of the said affidavit read as under :-
"1. I say that I got married during the Lockdown with
Petitioner No. 1 on 25.06.2020 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals
at Isargunde Wasti, Sakhar Karkhana Kumbhari, Tal. South
Solapur, District : Solapur. I say that the Petitioner No.1 is my
husband, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 my father-in-law and
mother-in-law and Petitioner No.4 is my brother in law.
2. I say that due to misunderstanding and in a heat of
anger I have filed the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.279 of 2020
u/sec. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
registered at Valsang Police Station, Solapur Rural, Solapur
dated 16.08.2020 against the Petitioners for cruelty and
harassment.
3. I say that my parents and relatives have amicably
settled the disputes arose between me and Petitioners and at
present I am residing with the Petitioners happily and 3
months pregnant from the Petitioner No.1. Hence, I have no
grievance against the Petitioners.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 WP-661-21 (OJ).doc
4. I say that I have no objection for quashing of F.I.R.
bearing C.R.No.279 of 2020 u/sec.498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w
34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Valsang Police Station,
Solapur Rural, Solapur dated 16.08.2020.
5. I say that I have agreed to withdraw the allegations
made in the F.I.R. as the dispute between me and the
Petitioners have been amicably settled. I say that I have no
objection for quashing of F.I.R. on my own free will and
without there being any pressure or coercion for the
settlement and quashing of the F.I.R.
6. The affidavit is explained in Marathi to me and I
have understood the contents of the affidavit, whatever
herein above stated is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief except the legal submission."
4. In order to ascertain from respondent No.2 as to whether
settlement arrived at between the parties is with free will or under
coercion, we interacted with respondent No.2. She stated that it is
her voluntary act to enter into settlement and give consent for
quashing the impugned FIR. It is stated that after the registration of
FIR, in view of the settlement, petitioners and respondent No.2 are
staying under one roof.
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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 WP-661-21 (OJ).doc
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
settled the dispute and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are
staying together in the matrimonial home, no fruitful purpose will
be served by continuing further investigation of Crime No.279 of
2020 registered at Valsang Police Station, Solapur Rural, Solapur for
the offences punishable under Sectios 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. In light of the discussion here-in-above, the petition deserves
to be allowed. Accordingly, same is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b), which reads as under :-
"This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
certiorari or any other appropriate, writ/direction/order in the
nature of writ of mandamus or certiorari under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 and also u/sec.482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, thereby quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing
C.R.No.279 of 2020 u/sec. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code registered at Valsang Police Station, Solapur
Rural, Solapur dated 16.08.2020 against the Petitioners."
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 WP-661-21 (OJ).doc
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
