Bombay High Court
Ratnadeep Sawant @ Bunty vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/4 Judgment APL-39-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.39 OF 2021
Ratnadeep Sawant @ Bunty ]
Age : 38, Occ : Service, ]
having address at Ramapati Sharma ]
Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Khar (East), ]
Mumbai - 400051. ] .. Applicant
]
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through the Office of Public ]
Prosecutor) ]
]
2. The Senior Inspector of Police, ]
Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai ]
]
3. Neelam Pravin Shah ]
Age : 20, Occ : Student, ]
having address at S.S.Bhatt Chawl, ]
Room No.4, J.P.Road, Jain Mandir, ]
Khar (E), Mumbai - 400051 ]
And ]
Presently residing at Talukdar Chawl, ]
Saibaba Road, Jawahar Nagar, ]
Opp. Ashoka Restaurant, Khar (East), ]
Mumbai - 400051 ] .. Respondents
Mr.Govind Prajapati for the Applicant.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr.Kanhaiya S. Yadav for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2021 22:49:28 :::
2/4 Judgment APL-39-21.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. The applicant herein has approached this Court with a prayer
for quashing of FIR registered against him at the behest of
respondent No.3 (original informant) for the offences punishable
under Sections 354(3), 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to respondent No.3, the applicant used to follow her and
show her photographs clicked on his mobile and he used to call her
on her mobile phone, leading to harassment. She also alleged that
the applicant sent messages on mobile, which demonstrate the
ingredients of the said offences.
2. The applicant filed the present application and stated that the
matter had been resolved between him and respondent No.3 and
that they had arrived at amicable settlement, as a consequence of
which, respondent No.3 was ready to co-operate for quashing of the
said FIR. Alongwith the application, the applicant has also filed an
undertaking on affidavit stating that he had realised his mistake
when his family and the family of respondent No.3 discussed the
matter. The applicant claims to have apologized to respondent No.3,
who decided to pardon him. In the undertaking, it is stated that the
applicant would never contact respondent No.3 in future and that he
would never approach her, even on social media.
3. Respondent No.3 appeared before this Court. She was
identified by her advocate. Respondent No.3 placed her affidavit
before this Court stating that the matter had been settled with the
applicant due to the intervention of the family friends and society
members. On this basis, she states that she did not wish to pursue
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 Judgment APL-39-21.doc
the matter further and that the present application be allowed so
that the aforesaid FIR could be quashed. It is stated in the affidavit
that she has executed the same on her own free will and without
coercion from any person.
4. The applicant and respondent No.3 were present in Court
before us. We interacted with respondent No.3 and she reiterated
the statements made in her affidavit and stated that the FIR could be
quashed.
5. Although the allegations leading to registration of the FIR
appear to indicate that the applicant had indulged in some activities
that had caused harassment to respondent No.3, but in view of the
affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and her statement made before
this Court by remaining personally present, it becomes clear that the
proceedings that may be undertaken in pursuance of the said FIR,
would be of no consequence, as respondent No.3 will not support
the allegations.
6. 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
4/4 Judgment APL-39-21.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.
7. In view of the above, it becomes clear that the present
application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice, although
we make it clear that the applicant will have to abide by the
undertaking given to this Court, which is annexed to the present
application. He shall abide by all the statements made therein, so
that respondent No.3 is not put to any harassment, at his instance in
future.
8. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as under :
"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R.No.393 of
2020 registered under section 354(3), 500, 506 of I.P.C.,pending
before the NIRMAL NAGAR police station."
9. We make it clear that if there is any breach of the aforesaid
undertaking filed by the applicant before this Court, the present
order will stand recalled.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
