Sonali Moorjani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1895 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                1/4                 37-APL-1300-2019.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.01.28
           18:55:13
           +0530           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1300 OF 2019

             Mrs. Sonali Moorjani
             Aged: 34 Years, Occupation: Service,
             R/at: A-304, Shanti Niketan,
             YAC Nagar, Kondivita Road,
             Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059.                            ...APPLICANT

                        Versus

             1.         The State of Maharashtra
                        Through MIDC Police Station, Andheri (E).

             2.         Mr. Ramlal Moorjani
                        Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
                        Age: 32 years, Occ:


             3.         Mrs. Jaya Ramlal Moorjani
                        Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai
                        Age: 32 years, Occ:

             4.         Mr. Nipun Ramlal Moorjani
                        Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
                        Age- 32 years, Occ: Merchant Navy Officer.

             5.    Mr. Pramod Ramlal Moorjani
                   Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai.
                   Age- 32 Years, Occ- Merchant Navy Officer,
                   All Presently residing at Mahada
                   Telephone Exchange,
                   Sardar Vallabhai Patel Road, 4 Bunglows,
                   Andheri (W), Mumbai, 400053.                     ...RESPONDENTS
                                                     ...
             Mr. Jehan Fulwadiwala a/w. Ms. Alisha Pinto, for Applicant.
             Mr. Laxman Kanal a/w. Mr. Pratik Thadani, Ms. Divya Kanal & Mr. Ayush
             Khandelwal for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
             Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for State.
             Ms. Sonali Moorjani Applicant-present in the Court.

             Bhagyawant Punde
                                             2/4                       37-APL-1300-2019.doc




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

DATE : JANUARY 28, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application is filed with following substantive prayer:-

a) Allow this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by quashing the FIR No. 562 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018 registered under section 498A, 406, 504, 34, 323 of Indian Penal Code registered at MIDC Police Station, Krantiveer, Lakhuji Slave Marg, Mulgaon, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093.

3. The informant is the applicant before this Court with prayer to

quash the impugned FIR. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent on

instructions submits that the 2nd respondent has no objection to acced to the

prayer of the applicant.

4. It appears that the parties have settled the dispute and to that

effect consent terms are filed before the Family Court, Bandra and said

consent terms are placed on record at Page No. 27 (Exhibit-D).

Bhagyawant Punde
                                           3/4                     37-APL-1300-2019.doc

5. We have perused the said consent terms. Learned counsel

appearing for 2nd respondent on instructions submits that Rs. 50,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Lacs only) are deposited in the Family Court, Bandra in the

year 2019. The said statement is not disputed by the learned counsel

appearing for the applicant. The parties through their respective advocates

submits that the they will strictly abide by the consent terms and will co-

operate the Family Court for early disposal of the proceedings initiated

before the said Court.

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the

informant herself has filed this application praying for quashing the

impugned FIR No. 562 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018 registered under section

498A, 406, 504, 34, 323 of IPC at MIDC Police Station, Krantiveer, Lakhuji

Slave Marg, Mulgaon, Andheri (E), no fruitful purpose would be served by

continuing the further investigation of the aforesaid FIR.

7. 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 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde 4/4 37-APL-1300-2019.doc

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.

8. Since the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and to that

effect consent terms are filed before the Family Court, Bandra, the informant

does not wish to pursue the allegations in the FIR and therefore, the chances

of the conviction of Respondents-accused would be remote and bleak.

9. In that view of the matter, the application deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Rule made absolute in

terms of prayer clause (a). The application stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Bhagyawant Punde