Bombay High Court
Vineet Kumar Balkrishna And Ors S vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath 1/5 38-APL-501-2020.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.01.18
19:49:48
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2020
1. Vineet Kumar Balkrishna ]
Age- 34 years, Adult, ]
Indian Inhabitant, ]
R/at: Rose Venchor, ]
Macanized Boot Laundary, ]
LTT, Tilaknagar, Mumbai-400089. ]
]
2. Rahul Kumar Maddeshiya ]
Age- 30 Years, Having address at 49, ]
Khushi Nagar Uttar Pradesh-274406. ]
]
3. Sajid Abdul Razzak Shaikh ]
Age- 36 Years, Having address at ]
Room No. 384, Riddhi Palace, Mumbai ]
Pune Road, Near Mumbra Police Station, ]
Thane, Mumbai. ]
]
4. Sirajuddin Ajmat Ali Khan ]
Age- 40 Years, Having address at ]
Room No. 2, Sujiya Sant Kabir Nagar, ]
Amorhwa Basti, Uttar Pradesh-272125. ]...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Kurla Railway Police Station) ]
]
2. Wasim Saleem Shaikh ]
Age- 33 Years, Occ- Service ]
Having office address at A-1 Facility ]
Managaer, A-1, Facility and Property ]
Managers, Pvt. Ltd. And ]
R/at: KWG/374, Kohinoor Society ]
Opp. Kohinoor Hotel, Andheri West, ]
Mumbai-400058. ]...RESPONDENTS
...
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 38-APL-501-2020.doc
Mr. Saurabh B. Rane for Applicants.
Mr. Maroof Khan for Respondent No. 2.
Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for State.
Mr. Himraj Sathe, API, Kurla Police Station-present.
Mr. Waseem Saleem Shaikh, Respondent No. 2-present.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2021.
ORAL 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. Learned counsel appearing for applicants and Respondent No. 2
jointly submits that the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably
settled the dispute and to that effect, the affidavit is filed by Respondent
No. 2.
3. The parties are identified by their respective advocates. On
13.01.2021 the applicants were present in the Court. On interaction with the
applicants, they have stated that they are doing their respective jobs and they
have not indulged in any such alleged activities.
4. The Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. He stated
that it is his voluntary act to enter into such settlement and give no objection
for quashing the impugned FIR. He stated that the pillow covers and bed
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 38-APL-501-2020.doc
sheets were given for cleaning and those were not not returned by the
applicants, therefore out of misunderstanding the impugned FIR was
registered.
5. Since the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled
the dispute and Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing the
impugned FIR, no purpose will be served by continuing the further
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 981 of 2020 registered with Kurla
Railway Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 read
with 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations in
the FIR and continuation of proceedings arsing out of FIR No. 981 of 2020,
registered with Kurla Railway Police Station, would tantamount to the abuse
of the process of the court.
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 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 38-APL-501-2020.doc
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 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 the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and the
averments of affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 2, we are of the
opinion that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly rule made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to deposit costs of
Rs. 20,000/- by the applicants (Rs. 5000/- to each applicant), within two
weeks from today in the following account:-
Name of Account Holder
For J.J. Fund- DY.COMMI. (CHILD DEVELOP) AND MEM.
SECY. & TRY M S CHILD FUND
Account No.- 11099464354
Name & Address of
Bank- State Bank of India, Pune Main Branch, Collector
Office Compound, Pune.
Branch Code- 454.
IFSC- SBIN0000454.
MICR- 411002002.
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 38-APL-501-2020.doc
8. Rule made absolute on above terms and writ petition stands
disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that this order will take effect only
after depositing of aforesaid amount by the applicants.
9. All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
