Bombay High Court
Kushant Jayram Fule vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant G.
Chandan
G. Date:
Chandan 2021.02.16
11:36:26 +0530 cri.wp-588.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2021
Mr. Kushant Jayram Fule ]
Age 26 years, Occ : Service, R/at : ]
Dahigaon, Tal. Malsiras, Dist. Solapur ]..... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
]
2] Officer-In-Charge ]
Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune ]
]
3] Mrs. Kavita Keshav Rathod ]
Age : 23 years, R/at : Anandnagar, Tal. ]
Pathari, Dist. Parbhani ]..... Respondents.
Mr. P A Bhise for the Petitioner.
Ms. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Sukhada Dalvi for Respondent No3.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on : 11th FEBRUARY 2021
Pronounced on : 16th FEBRUARY 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 By this Writ Petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.201 of
2018 dated 04/08/2018 lodged by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner
lgc 1 of 6
cri.wp-588.21.odt
with Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(1), 373, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On the ground of
jurisdiction, Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune transferred the said FIR to
Bharati Vidhyapeeth Police Station, Pune which is bearing No.383 of 2018
dated 05/08/2018 for the same offences. The Petitioner is the husband of
Respondent No.3 and he is an accused in the complainant lodged by
Respondent No.3.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 jointly submits that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and to that effect Respondent No.3 has filed her
consent affidavit.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 that it
is the voluntary act of Respondent No. 3 to arrive at settlement and give
consent for quashing the impugned FIR.
5 This matter was on board on 11/02/2021 for hearing. At that time
the 3rd Respondent was present in the Court. She was identified by her
advocate. When we interacted with her, she stated that it is her voluntary act to
enter into the settlement. She further stated that she has no objection for
quashing the impugned FIR. As stated herein above, in support of her aforesaid
lgc 2 of 6
cri.wp-588.21.odt
statements, she has filed her consent affidavit before this Court.
6 In paragraphs 3 to 7 of her affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, she
has stated thus :-
"3 I say that on 11.08.2018 the Petitioner and I got marry
and accordingly we are staying with each other as
husband and wife.
4 I say that pending the said F.I.R., the dispute between
me and the Petitioner has been amicably
resolved/settled.
5 I say that the Petitioner and I have withdrawn all the
allegations levelled against each other. Since the matter
has been amicably resolved and settled by and between
the parties, and the nature of the offences registered in
the said both F.I.R. is such, that no purpose will be
served whatsoever, to continue, prosecute and pursue
the said F.I.R. any further.
6 In view of this, I hereby give my irrevocable consent to
quash the aid FIR No.201 of 2018 dated 04/08/2018
registered as Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune and
transferred FIR No.382 of 2018 dated 05/08/2018
registered at Bharati Vidhyapeeth Police Station, Pune
under Section 376(1), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860 against the accused named therein. I consent
for granting of present Petition as prayed.
lgc 3 of 6
cri.wp-588.21.odt
7 In view of this, I submit that by consent, the present
Petition may be made absolute with cost."
7 In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation of impugned FIR
lodged by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(1), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. We have
perused the allegations in the FIR and noticed that prior to the marriage of the
Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent their relationship was consensual, and
therefore, an alleged offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code is
not made out. The Petitioner has placed on record the Certificate of
Registration of Marriage at Exhibit B on Page 14 of the Writ Paper Book.
8 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 offence 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 resolves 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 4 of 6
cri.wp-588.21.odt
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 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.
9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the Respondent No. 3 is not going to support the allegations in the
impugned FIR and further continuation of investigation in the impugned FIR
lodged by the 3rd Respondent against the Petitioner/Accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(1), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code
would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Law/Court. Since the
Respondent No.3 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR the chances
of the conviction of the Petitioner would be remote and bleak. In that view of
the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIRs are
required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR No.201 of 2018 dated 04/08/2018 lodged by Respondent
No.3 against the Petitioner with Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 373, 504 and 506 of the Indian
lgc 5 of 6
cri.wp-588.21.odt
Penal Code which has been transferred to Bharati Vidhyapeeth Police Station,
Pune bearing FIR No.383 of 2018 dated 05/08/2018 for the same offences are
quashed and set aside.
10 Rule is made absolute to above extent and, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of accordingly.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 6 of 6
