Mohammed Shaukat vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 3051 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                        923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc
            Digitally
            signed by
            Vishwanath
 Vishwanath S. Sherla
 S. Sherla
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            Date:
            2021.02.16
            17:18:29
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
            +0530

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2021
                                                 WITH
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2021
                                                   IN
                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2021

                                                                             ... Petitioner /
                     Mohammed Shaukat
                                                                                Applicant
                                  Vs.
                     State of Maharashtra & another                       ... Respondents



                    Ms.Pooja Joshi i/b Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the Applicant / Petitioner

                    Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP, for Respondent - State

                    Mr.Jay Yadav for Respondent No.2 / Complainant


                                               CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                      MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED: FEBRUARY 16, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. This petition is filed praying for the following substantive

relief:

923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc

"(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and direction directing the quashing of FIR No.166 of 2020 registered under the provisions of Section 376(2)(N), 354, 354C, 420, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of IPC registered by the Respondent No.1 at the instance of the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner be directed to be released on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. After registration of the First Information Report, the

petitioner and Respondent No.2 have married. Their marriage

certificate is placed on record at exhibit A to the reply filed by

Respondent No.2. In the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, in

paragraphs 1 to 7, it is stated as under:

"1. I say that I am the Respondent No.2 in the matter and on the complaint made by me, the Respondent No.2 have registered the present FIR against the Petitioner hereinabove. I say that infact, I got engaged with the Petiitoner hereinabove way back in the month of October, 2019 and thereafter, for one reason or the other, the marriage was not taking place. I say that now, I am satisfied that it was only because of the Corona virus and pandemic situation, the marriage has not been arranged.

2. I say that however, in the meanwhile, I have a doubt as to whether infact, the Petitioner intends to marry with me or not. I say that only because of the said doubts, I have filed the present complaint filed with the Respondent No.1 which came to be registered as a FIR against the Petitioner and the Petitioner came to be arrested.

3. I say that after the petitioner being released on bail the petitioner had married with Respondent No.2 on 30/10/2020 and accordingly, hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-"A" is

923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc

a copy of the marriage certificate.

4. I say that even myself and petitioner have also executed a joint declaration dt.30/10/2020 and accordingly, hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-"B" is a copy of the declaration.

5. I say that infact, the said FIR have resulted only because of some confusion and doubts in my mind accordingly, I am filing my present Affidavit mentioning therein that I have no objection of whatsoever nature to quash the FIR registered on behalf of me and release the Petitioner hereinabove.

6. I say that accordingly, I am filing my present Affidavit without there being any pressure of whatsoever nature from any of the parties and accordingly, it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed.

7. I say that I have no objection for quashing of FIR as prayed by the petitioner in the present petition."

4. On the last date of hearing, Respondent No.2 was present

before this Court. She had stated that after the First Information

Report was registered out of misunderstanding; the petitioner and

herself have now got married and, therefore, she does not wish to

pursue the allegations in the First Information Report.

5. The fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married

is not in dispute. It is true that one of the alleged offences is

serious in nature, however, respondent No.2 has stated that the

923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc

First Information Report was lodged out of misunderstanding and

in view of the subsequent event, i.e., marriage between the

petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 has no objection

for quashing of the First Information Report.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh 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 is further held that as inherent 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc

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. Since the petitioner and Respondent No.2 are married after

registration of the First Information Report and they are staying

together, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Respondent No.2, certainly Respondent No.2 is not going to

support the prosecution case and chances of conviction of the

petitioner would be remote and bleak.

8. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case, the impugned First Information Report

deserves to be quashed and accordingly, Rule is made absolute in

terms of prayer clause (b), as reproduced hereinabove.

9. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

10. The learned APP submits that during the course of

investigation, passport, PAN card, two mobile phones of the

accused / petitioner were seized. Be that as it may, since the First

Information Report itself is quashed, we direct the concerned

923_wp.333.2021 n IA.doc

Investigating Officer to return all the articles to the petitioner,

forthwith.

11. With the above observations, the Interim Application stands

disposed of.

      (MANISH PITALE, J.)                        (S.S. SHINDE, J.)