Bombay High Court
Nitin Parshuram Pisal And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 37 APL-226-20 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.226 OF 2020
1. Nitin Parshuram Pisal, }
Age : 31 Years, Occupation -Service }
2. Parshuram Dagdu Pisal, }
Age : 65 Years, Occupation -Retired. }
3. Nilam Parshuram Pisal, }
Age : 58 Years, Occupation -Household }
All are residing at D-12, 1/4, }
Shrimangal Darshan Society, Sector }
No.10, Airoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 708, }
District-Thane. } ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
(Through Nehru Nagar Police Station, }
Mumbai }
2. Hemlata Nitin Pisal @ Hemlata }
Shankar Mohite }
Age : 30 Years, Occupation-Service, }
Residing at C/o, Shankar Mohite, Flat }
No.1204, Parivar Society, 'B' Wing, 'C' }
Building, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai - }
400 042. } ... Respondents
...
Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for the applicants.
Mr. Sushrut Jadhwar for Respondent No.2.
Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 10:36:16 :::
2/5 37 APL-226-20 (J).doc
Mrs. Hemlata Nitin Pisal @ Hemlata S. Mohite-Respondent No.2 is
present in Court.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT:- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, heard finally.
2. The applicants have approached this court seeking quashing of
First Information Report ("FIR") dated 20/07/2018 registered at
Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). The FIR stood registered on the basis of
the complaint submitted by respondent No.2 (original complainant).
Applicant No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 while applicant
No.2 is the father-in-law and applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law.
3. Subsequent to the registration of FIR, the parties have made
attempts and mutually settled the dispute. Since the complaint
appears to have been filed due to the matrimonial discord between the
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, attempts for settling the dispute
have led to filing of the petition for divorce, by mutual consent, before
the competent court under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act
("the said Act").
AJN
3/5 37 APL-226-20 (J).doc
4. This court is informed that the first motion in the said
proceedings is submitted and the second motion is awaited.
5. In this light, respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit before
this court supporting the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants
that now the dispute stands resolved and that the aforesaid petition for
grant of divorce, by mutual consent, is pending before the competent
court. In this backdrop, respondent No.2 submits that she has no
objection to the grant of prayers made in the petition.
6. Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 are present in the court.
We have interacted with respondent No.2, who confirms the fact that
she has filed the affidavit in this court on her own free will and
without any coercion. She reiterated that she has no objection to the
criminal application being allowed subject to applicant No.1 co-
operating in the proceedings instituted under Section 13B of the said
Act, which is pending before the competent court.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of
Punjab and Anr.1 has held that, the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
AJN
4/5 37 APL-226-20 (J).doc
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 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 dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment,
we are of the opinion that continuance of the further proceedings
pursuant to the registration of FIR would be of no consequences
and, therefore, the present criminal application deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the criminal application is allowed in terms
of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows:
"A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the
powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quash and set
aside the entire Charge-sheet filed in C.R.
No.264 of 2018 against the Applicants and
further be pleased to quash and set aside the
AJN
5/5 37 APL-226-20 (J).doc
entire proceedings in Regular Criminal Case
No.1332/PW/2018 against the Applicants
pending on the file of the Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai."
9. We make it clear that we have allowed the present criminal
application subject to the condition that applicant No.1 shall co-
operate with respondent No.2 in the pending proceedings for
grant of divorce, by mutual consent, filed under Section 13B of
the said Act and that the applicant No.1 shall attend the court
proceedings on each and every day of the hearings.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
11. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
AJN
