Bombay High Court
Rahul Haresh Rijhwani And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Makarand Subhash Karnik
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant G.
Chandan
G. Date:
Chandan 2021.01.04 (3) criapl-524.20.odt
19:23:43 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 524 OF 2020
1] Rahul Haresh Rij1hwani ]
Age 28, Indian Inhabitant, Occupation Business ]
]
2] Haresh Rijhwani ]
Age - Adult, Indian Inhabitant ]
]
3] Pooja Haresh Rijhwani ]
Age - Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ]
]
All R/at : 3rd Floor, Hareh Krishna Apartment, ]
Near Alfa Medical, Gol Maidan, ]
Ulhasnagar - 421001 ]..... Applicants
versus
1] State of Maharashtra ]
(at the instance of Ulhasnagar ]
Police Station, Ulhasnagar) ]
]
2] Sarah w/o Rahul Rijhwani ]
@ Heena d/o Omprakash Bhatia ]
Adult, Occ Household, Age 25 yrs. ]
R/at 302. A-Wing, Dharam Villa Co-op ]
Hsg Soc. Pnjabi Colony, Ulhasnagar-421003 ]..... Respondents.
Mr. Girish Paryani i/by A G Legal Associates LLP for the Applicants.
Mrs. A S Pai, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Aarti Deodhar i/by Mr. Virendra Pethe for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
M. S. KARNIK, JJ
DATE : 04th JANUARY 2021
lgc 1 of 5
(3) criapl-524.20.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER S S SHINDE, J]
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties and heard finally.
2 By this Criminal Application filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code the Applicants are seeking quashing of FIR vide CR
No.I-53 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the
Indian penal Code on 01/02/2020 registered with Central Police Station,
Ulhasnagar bearing RCC No.805 of 2020 pending before the learned Joint Civil
Judge & JMFC, Ulhasnagar.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the 2 nd
Respondent submits that the Applicants and the 2nd Respondent have amicably
settled the dispute and to that effect Memo of Understanding has been signed
by Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the 2 nd
Respondent has filed the affidavit stating therein that she has no objection for
quashing the impugned FIR.
4 The 2nd Respondent is personally present in Court. She is
identified by her advocate. On a specific query whether such an amicable
lgc 2 of 5
(3) criapl-524.20.odt
settlement has been entered into with her free will and without any coercion,
her reply is in affirmative.
5 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 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.
6 We have carefully perused the Memo of Understanding signed by
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 3 of 5
(3) criapl-524.20.odt
Applicant No.1 and the 2nd Respondent. We do not want to reproduce the
terms of settlement arrived at between the parties therein since both the
parties have agreed to institute proceedings by taking course to Section13(b)
of Hindu Marriage Act. Suffice it to say that in view of amicable settlement as
reflected in the Memo of Understanding, and the affidavit filed by the 2 nd
Respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing further
investigation/proceedings arising out of FIR vide CR No.I-53 of 2020.
7 Since the 2nd Respondent has no objection for quashing the
impugned FIR, certainly the 2 nd Respondent is not going to support the
allegations made in the FIR and further continuation of the
investigation/proceedings arising out of the CR No.I-53 of 2020 for the
offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian penal Code on
01/02/2020 registered with Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar bearing RCC
No.805 of 2020 pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge & JMFC,
Ulhasnagar would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of
the process of Court.
8 In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the petition deserves to be
allowed, and the impugned FIR is required to be quashed.
lgc 4 of 5
(3) criapl-524.20.odt
9 The Criminal Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a). The Criminal Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
10 This Judgment will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of
this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally
signed copy of this order.
[M. S. KARNIK, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 5 of 5
