Bombay High Court
Samir Sudhir Chaturvedi And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/4 Judgment-APL-41-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.41 of 2021
1. Samir Sudhir Chaturvedi }
Age 31 years, Occupation -Service }
}
2. Sudhir Chaturvedi }
Aged 51 years, Occupation - Business}
}
3. Smt.Seema Sudhir Chaturvedi }
Aged 46 years, Occupation-Housewife}
All Presently residing at }
Room No.203, bach Heaven Two, }
Juhu, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (W)}
Mumbai- 400049 } .. Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra }
(At the instance of Sr.Inspector }
Santacruz Police Station }
}
2. Vaishali Chaturvedi }
Age-27 years, Occupation - Service }
201, I Wing, Bhoomi Park, Phase V, }
Jankalyan Nagar, Marve Road, }
Malad (W), Mumbai 400095 } .. Respondents
...
Ms.Akshata Timmapur i/b The Law Point for the Applicants
Mr.Nikhil Mendge for Respondent No.2.
Mrs.Vaishali Chaturvedi-Respondent No.2 present through VC.
Mr.K.V.Saste-APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 13:29:33 :::
2/4 Judgment-APL-41-21.doc
JUDGMENT (Per Manish Pitale, J,)
1. By this application, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), the applicants are seeking
quashing of First Information Report (FIR) dated 7 th May, 2019
registered against them at Police Station Santacruz for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant at
whose behest the said FIR was registered.
2. Since the dispute between the parties arose out of the
matrimonial discord between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2,
efforts were made to amicably settle the dispute. In pursuance of
the said exercise, the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement, as
a consequence of which, a petition for divorce by mutual consent has
been already filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Respondent No.2 has consented to put an end to the
proceedings initiated in pursuance to the said FIR. Respondent No.2
has also filed an affidavit in this Court reiterating the consent terms
arrived at between the parties before the Family Court. Respondent
No.2 has joined the proceedings before this Court through video
conferencing and she informed this Court that the affidavit as well
as the consent terms have been signed by her on her own free will
and without any coercion.
3. The Hon'ble 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 Judgment-APL-41-21.doc
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
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.
4. In view of the said position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh (supra) and applying the
same to the facts of the present case, it is evident that continuation
of proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR would be of no
consequence and that therefore, the present application deserves to
be allowed with the consent of respondent No.2.
5. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as under :
"This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing
C.R.No.212 of 2019 dated 07/05/2019 being registered
with Santacruz Police Station for offences punishable
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 Judgment-APL-41-21.doc
U/s.498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, in the
interest of justice."
6. The criminal application is disposed of.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
