Bombay High Court
Mandeep Singh Tanda And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant G.
G. Chandan
Date: 2021.02.18
Chandan 21:16:30 +0530 (59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.699 OF 2021
1] Mr. Mandeep Singh Tanda ]
Age : 34 years, ]
Occ : presently unemployed ]
Presently Residing at : Flat No.402, ]
Building 20A, FAM Co-op. Housing, ]
Plot No.19/19-A, Sector 11, ]
Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai 400709 ]
]
2] Mrs. Ranjit Kaur Tanda ]
Age : 54 years, Occ : Housewife ]
Presently Residing at : Flat No.402, ]
Building 20A, FAM Co-op. Housing, ]
Plot No.19/19-A, Sector 11, ]
Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai 400709 ]
]
3] Mr.Karamjeet Singh Tanda ]
Age : 64 years, Occ : Service ]
Presently Residing at : Flat No.402, ]
Building 20A, FAM Co-op. Housing, ]
Plot No.19/19-A, Sector 11, ]
Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai 400709 ]
].... Petitioners.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through the Senior Police Inspector ]
Kalamboli Police Station ]
C.R. No.193 of 2017 ]
]
2] Smt. Sonia Kaur Mandeep Singh Tanda ]
Aged about 32 years. ]
Occupation : Service ]
Residing at : Flat No.601, 6th Floor, ]
Pacific Heights, Sector - 11, Plot No.17 ]
Kalamboli, Panvel City - 410218 ]..... Respondents.
Mr. Manish Rai for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. S R Phanse for Respondent No.2.
lgc 1 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2021
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 This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantial reliefs :-
(a) The RCC No.757/2017 presently pending before the Ld.
JMFC at Panvel, Dist. Raigad arising out of CR No.I 93 of
2017 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, be
quashed and set aside.
(b) That the Look Out Circular issued by Kalamboli Police
Station, if pending against the Petitioner No.3, pertaining
to CR No.I 93 of 2017 registered with Kalamboli Police
Station, may kindly be cancelled.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 is the
husband of Respondent No.2, they got married on 28/11/2015 at Kharghar.
The Respondent No.2 is the First Informant in CR No.I 93 of 2017 registered at
Kalamboli Police Station. It is aslso submitted that the Chargesheet is filed
against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 before the Ld. JMFC at Panvel in RCC No.757 of
lgc 2 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
2017 and the matter is pending for hearing. It is also submitted that the
chargesheet against Petitioner No.3 is not yet filed as Petitioner No.3 was out
of India. The learned counsel for the parties further submitted that through
mediation the dispute between the parties has been resolved and settled, and
pursuant to the said settlement, Petitioner No.1 paid Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Lakhs only) to the 2 nd Respondent by Demand Draft as permanent
alimony. It is submitted that Consent Terms dated 11/01/2021 signed by the
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 has been filed before the Ld. Civil Judge
Senior Division at Panvel in HMP No.58 of 2019.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that it
is the voluntary act of Respondent No. 2 to arrive at settlement and give
consent for quashing the proceedings being RCC No.757/2017 pending before
the JMFC, Panvel.
5 Respondent No.2 is present in Court. She is identified by her
advocate. When we interacted with her, she stated that it is her voluntary act
without coercion to enter into the settlement and sign the Consent Terms. She
further stated that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings pending
before the learned JMFC, Panvel. She further stated that she has received
Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only) from the Petitioner No.1 by
Demand Draft.
lgc 3 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
6 In support of her aforesaid statements, Respondent No.2 has filed
her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 1 to 5 of her affidavit,
Respondent No.2 has stated thus :-
"1 I say that I had filed Criminal Complaint against the
Petitioners under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506, 34
of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 with Kalamboli Police Station, Dist. Raigad being
CR No.I-93 of 2017. I say that chargesheet in the above
mentioned matter has been filed and the said case is
pending before Ld. JMFC Panvel being RCC
No.757/2017.
2 I say that the Petitioner No.1 is my husband, Petitioner
No.2 is my mother in law and Petitioner No.3 is my
father in law. I say that we have settled our dispute at
Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar, New Panvel the
mediation took place between both parties in presence
of respectable persons namely 1. Mr. Gurdev Singh 2.
Mr. Harvinder Singh Butter 3. Mr. Jaspal Singh Sidhu 4.
Mr. Baldev Singh Samraa 5. Mr. Charanjeet Singh. Since
both the parties have agreed to settle the dispute and
also agree for Divorce by Mutual Consent.
3 I say that the HMP No.58/2019 has been converted into
a Petition for Divorce by Mutual Consent and I have filed
my evidence therein, withdrawing all my allegations
lgc 4 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
against Petitioners herein and agreeing for divorce. I say
that the said settlement was arrived at by the mediation
of the elders in our community in Gurudwara Guru
Nanak Darbar, New Panvel.
4 I say that now we have settled our dispute mutually, I
have withdrawn all my allegations against Petitioners
and I have no grievance against the Petitioners and
therefore do not wish to proceed with the above
mentioned Criminal Complaint.
5 I therefore, say that I have no objection if the
abovementioned Criminal Complaint is quashed and set
aside in view of the above settlements as per the
Consent Terms filed and in the interest of justice."
7 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
the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 5 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
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.
8 Since the Petitioners and the 2rd Respondent have amicably settled
the dispute and, to that effect the Petitioner No.1 and the 2 nd Respondent have
filed the Joint Affidavit of Consent Terms before the Court of learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Panvel in HMP No.58 of 2019, the copy of which is
annexed to this Petition at Page No.62 of the Writ Paper Book, no fruitful
purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings pending before the
learned JMFC, Panvel.
9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations made in
the FIR and further continuation of proceedings being RCC No. 757 of 2017
pending before the learned JMFC, Panvel would tantamount to the abuse of
the process of the Law/Court. Since the paties have amicably settled the
dispute and in terms of settlement Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs
lgc 6 of 7
(59) cri.wp-699.21.odt
only) have been paid by Petitioner No.1 to Respondent No.2 by way of Demand
Draft and in view of the said settlement, the Respondent No.2 is not interested
in participating the proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Panvel, the
chances of the conviction of the Petitioners would be remote and bleak. In that
view of the matter, the writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read
thus :-
(a) The RCC No.757/2017 presently pending before the Ld.
JMFC at Panvel, Dist. Raigad arising out of CR No.I 93 of
2017 registered with Kalamboli Police Station, be
quashed and set aside.
(b) That the Look Out Circular issued by Kalamboli Police
Station, if pending against the Petitioner No.3, pertaining
to CR No.I 93 of 2017 registered with Kalamboli Police
Station, may kindly be cancelled.
10 The parties to abide strictly by the Consent Terms arrived at between
them.
11 Rule is made absolute to the above extent and, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 7 of 7
