Bombay High Court
Vicky Gulabchand Gupta Alias ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath
1/5 22-CRWPST-6708-2020.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.01.19
20:13:56
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 6708 OF 2020
1. Vicky Gulabchand Gupta Alias
Abhishek Gulabchand Gupta
Age- 23 Years, Occ- Student.
2. Aakash Gulabchand Gupta
Age- 24 Years, Occ- Service,
Both residing at Room No. D/46
Plot No. 382, Rajmala Society, Sector No. 3,
Charkop, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Public Prosecutor
PWD Bldg, High Court, Mumbai.
2. Smt. Sonal Santosh Bamane
Age- 37 Years, Occ- Housewife
Residing at Room No. 5, Rocky Vaiti Chawl,
Bunder Pakhadi Gaon, Charkop, Kandivali
(West), Mumbai- 400067. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Rupesh R. Maurya for Petitioners.
Mr. Anand S. Pandey i/b. R Lex Law for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 19, 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.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 22-CRWPST-6708-2020.doc
2. This writ petition takes an exception to the Case No.
1701/PW/PW/2018 pending before Ld. 24th Court at Borivali, Mumbai
arising out of FIR No. 159 of 2017, registered under Sections 354, 324, 323,
504, 506(1) and 34 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioners and Respondent No. 2
jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The
Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit. The parties are identified by their
respective advocates. On 22.12.2020 this Court has interacted with
Respondent No. 2. She stated that the present petitioners were not involved in
the alleged offences. She further stated that it is her voluntary act to give
consent for amicable settlement and quashing the impugned FIR.
4. We have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR and as
rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, so far ingredients of
Section 354 of IPC are concerned the same are not attracted as against the
present petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit stated that the
allegation of molestation was against other two co-accused namely Vicky
D'Souza and Marshal D'Souza and not against the present petitioners. It is
further stated that in view of amicable settlement, she is not willing to
proceed further to prosecute the present petitioners. It is further stated that it
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 22-CRWPST-6708-2020.doc
is her voluntary act without any force, pressure, coercion or undue influence
for giving consent/no objection for quashing the impugned FIR.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is certain that the
Respondent No. 2 is not ready to pursue the allegations in the FIR and
continuation of further investigation/proceedings i.e. Case No.
1701/PW/2018 pending before Ld. 24th Court at Borivali, Mumbai arising out
of FIR No. 159 of 2017, registered under Sections 354, 324, 323, 504, 506(1)
and 34 of IPC, would be an exercise in futility and tantamount to the abuse of
the process of the law/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
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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 22-CRWPST-6708-2020.doc
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, the petition
deserves to be allowed qua the present petitioners. Hence, the following
order:-
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed. The proceedings restricted to
the Petitioners herein i.e. Case No. 1701/PW/2018
pending before Ld. 24th Court at Borivali Mumbai arising
out of FIR No. 159 of 2017, registered under Sections
354, 324, 323, 504, 506(1) and 34 of IPC are quashed and
set aside.
2. Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 22-CRWPST-6708-2020.doc
3. Needless to observe that the respondents are free to
prosecute other two co-accused namely Vicky D'Souza
and Marshal D'Souza.
4. All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
