Bombay High Court
Chandrprakash B. Lodha vs Rukmini Baban Kadam And Anr on 22 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 Judgment WP-1252-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1252 OF 2020
Chandraprakash B. Lodha ]
R/o Plot No.12, J/8, ]
Near Durgamata Mandir, ]
Road No.8, Baiganwadi, ]
Govandi, Mumbai - 400 043 ]
] .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt.Rukmini Baban Kadam ]
R/o. Sector 11, Plot No.747, ]
Bhaskar Hira Patil Building, ]
1st Floor, Flat No.103, Juhu Gaon, ]
Vashi, Navi Mumbai ]
]
2. State of Maharashtra ]
through the Public Prosecutor ]
Bombay High Court, Mumbai ] .. Respondents
Mr.Raghavendra Mehrotra for the Petitioner.
Mr.R.V.Bansode for Respondent No.1.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Smt.Rukmini Baban Kadam-Respondent No.1 present in Court.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2021 21:11:42 :::
2/5 Judgment WP-1252-20.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as also power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of Criminal Case No.777/PW/2017
pending on the file of the 57 th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at
Kurla arising out of the FIR No.595 of 2015 registered at Shivaji
Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In the complaint leading to registration of FIR, respondent
No.1 (original complainant) submitted that the petitioner had
cheated her, taking advantage of her old age and illiteracy. It was
submitted that the petitioner first became a partner in connection
with fair price shop and thereafter caused an application to be
moved before the competent authority for transfer of licence in his
name. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner had
committed the said offences. Upon registration of FIR, investigation
was undertaken.
4. Respondent No.1 also claimed that she approached the
competent authority raising her grievance against the petitioner and
that there was litigation between the parties. But, after common
friends intervened, parties entered into a settlement and consent
terms were also executed between them.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 Judgment WP-1252-20.doc
5. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.1 appeared before this
Court through advocate and reiterated the fact that dispute between
the parties had been settled and that she had made allegations
against the petitioner due to misunderstanding. In this backdrop,
we interacted with respondent No.1 when she was personally
present before this Court. She specifically stated that she had sworn
the affidavit filed before this Court, as also the consent terms by her
own free will and without coercion from any quarter. It was
reiterated that the dispute had arisen in the first place due to
misunderstanding between the parties and this was specifically
stated in the consent terms. She further stated that the obligations
in the consent terms had been satisfied by the petitioner and that
therefore, she was supporting the prayer of quashing of FIR and
criminal proceedings.
6. We have perused the contents of the complaint leading to
registration of FIR and when read with the contents of the consent
terms and the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 before this Court, it
appears that the dispute arose between the parties essentially due to
misunderstanding and that the dispute is of a private and civil
nature. The relevant contents of the affidavit filed before this Court,
read as follows :
"2. I say that in the above case, after prolonged Litigation a
settlement has taken place due to the mediation of certain
common friends between and the petitioner.
3. I say that in view of the settlement, I do not intend to
proceed with the case No.777/PW/2017 pending on the file of
the Ld.57th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kurla arising out
of the FIR bearing No.595/2015 cases which is initiated by me
as against the Petitioner. I say that only in order to have
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 Judgment WP-1252-20.doc
peace and live in harmony and to avoid wasting long time, I
am intending to consent for withdrawal of the case
mentioned.
4. I say that all my demands are already decided in the
mutual consent term filed and the Petitioner is ready to
compensate me. I say that the aforesaid case is not of such
nature as the same could not be quashed by this Hon'ble
Court in its inherent power or writ jurisdiction.
5. In view of the settlement, I hereby pray for the closure of
the above case which is pending Case No.777/PW/2017
pending on the file of the Ld. 57 th Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Kurla arising out of the F.I.R. bearing No.595/2015
where I am the 1st Informant/Complainant.
6. I am making this affidavit on my own wish and without
any force, Coercion or compulsion from any one."
7. 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
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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 Judgment WP-1252-20.doc
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.
8. In view of the aforesaid position of law and its applicability to
the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the present
writ petition deserves to be allowed. In view of the stand specifically
taken by respondent No.1 before this Court, there is hardly any
possibility of the proceedings initiated through the said FIR,
culminating in proving the guilt of the petitioner. Hence, further
continuation of such proceedings would be of no consequence.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as follows :-
"a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, Order or
direction calling for the records and proceedings of the Case
No.777/PW/2017 pending on the file of the Ld.57th
Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kurla arising out of the F.I.R.
bearing No.595/2015 and upon examining the legality,
correctness, propriety of the proceedings conducted so far, be
pleased to quash and set aside the same."
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
