Lalit Chopra vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1778 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                  1/5                       6-CRWP-1330-2020.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.01.27
           17:52:44
           +0530            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2020

              Lalit Chopra
              Age 50 years, Occ- Service,
              Hindu, Residing At A-701, Pratap Society,
              J.P. Road, Andheri (W),
              Mumbai- 400053
              Mob. No. 98701 40336
              Email ID: [email protected]                   ...PETITIONER

                        Versus

              1.        The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
                        At the instance of Varsova Police Station.

              2.    Usha Chopra
                    Aged 47 years, Occ- Service,
                    Residing At A-201, Gundecha Hills,
                    Near D Mart, Chandivali,
                    Andheri (East), Mumbai 400072.
                                AND
                    Having office at C/o Air India,
                    Chatrapati Shivaji International
                    Airport Sahar, Andheri (East),
                    Mumbai- 400 099.                            ...RESPONDENTS
                                                     ...
              Mr. Saeed Akhtar a/w. Ms. Pinny Pathak for Petitioner.
              Mr. Prakash N. Wagh for Respondent No. 2.
              Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for State.
              Ms. Usha Chopra, Respondent No. 2 present in the Court.
                                                     ...

                                              CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                      MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                                              DATE :         JANUARY 27, 2021.




              Bhagyawant Punde
                                            2/5                      6-CRWP-1330-2020.doc




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 Petitioner and Respondent No. 2

jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to that

effect consent terms have been arrived between the parties before the Family

Court. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has tendered across

the bar, affidavit of Respondent No. 2, same is taken on record.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that

it is the voluntary act of Respondent No. 2 to arrive at settlement and give

consent for quashing the impugned FIR.

4. Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. She is identified

by her advocate. She stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such

settlement and give consent for quashing the FIR.

5. In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful

purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation of FIR No. 186

of 2007 registered at Versova Police Station for the offences punishable

under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 (ii) read with 34 of IPC.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                            3/5                      6-CRWP-1330-2020.doc

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

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 discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly

clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations in the

FIR and further continuation of investigation/proceedings arising out of FIR 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde 4/5 6-CRWP-1330-2020.doc

No. 186 of 2007 registered at Versova Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 (ii) read with 34 of IPC,

would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court/law. Since the

Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR the

chances of the conviction of the petitioner would be remote and bleak. The

entire dispute arose out of matrimonial discord. In that view of the matter, the

petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms

of prayer clause (a), which reads thus-

a) That the criminal proceedings bearing no. 68/PW/ 2009 pending at the file of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrates' 44th Court at Andheri arising out of FIR No. 186/2007 registered at Versova police station be quashed and set aside.

8. Rule made absolute to above extent and writ petition stands

disposed of accordingly.

9. Needless to observe that the parties shall strictly abide by the

consent terms and co-operate with the Family Court for early disposal of

pending proceedings. The parties shall attend the proceedings unless there is

compelling reason for not attending the same and leave granted by the

concerned Court. The Family Court shall expedite the pending proceedings

and take it to the logical end expeditiously.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                             5/5                       6-CRWP-1330-2020.doc

10. All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

      ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                    (S. S. SHINDE, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde