Sahil Salim Shaikh Amd Ors vs The State Of Maharshtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 38 Bom

            Digitally signed
Laxmikant   by Laxmikant
            G. Chandan
G.          Date:                                                     (8) criwpst-6335.20.odt
Chandan     2021.01.04
            19:28:32 +0530




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 6335 OF 2020

            1]      Mr. Sahil Salim Shaikh                        ]
                    Aged - 22 years, Occupation - Service         ]
                    Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at             ]
                    Navrangwadi, Akruli Road,                     ]
                    Near Sai Baba Mandir, Hanuman Nagar,          ]
                    Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101              ]
                                                                  ]
            2]      Narendra Sheshdhar Tiwari                     ]
                    5, Ram Sagar Sharma Chawl, Pratap Nagar       ]
                    Kurar Gaon, Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097      ]
                                                                  ]
            3]      Mahesh Rajendraprasad Mishra                  ]
                    D-4, Jai Hind Chawl, Gokul Nagar, Near        ]
                    Sai Baba Mandir, Kandivali (East)             ]
                    Mumbai 400 101                                ]..... Petitioners.

                           versus

            1]      The State of Maharashtra                      ]
                    (Through Samtanagar Police Station)           ]..... Respondent No.1

] 2] Smt. Toral Kalpesh Desai ] 234, A Wing, Kalptaru Tower ] Akruli Road, Kandiwali East ] Mumbai 400 101 ]..... Respondent No.2

Mr. Ashish A Dubey for the Petitioners.

Mr J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Jigar K Agarwal for Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 present.

                                       CORAM :    S. S. SHINDE,
                                                  M. S. KARNIK, JJ
                                       DATE   :   04th JANUARY 2021




            lgc                                                                       1 of 5
                                                               (8) criwpst-6335.20.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER S S SHINDE, J]

1            Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

parties and heard finally.



2            This Petition is filed for the following substantial relief :-

      (c)    This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the FIR

being C.R. No.915 of 2020 registered with the Samtangar Police Station against the present Petitioners for the offences punishable u/s.381 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Respondent

No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The

learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd Respondent has tendered across the bar

the Consent Affidavit of Respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. In the

said Consent Affidavit the 2nd Respondent has stated that she has filed the said

affidavit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Paragraphs

1 to 4 of the said affidavit are reproduced herein under for ready reference :-

"1 I am the original complainant who has registered FIR No.915 of 2020 dated 31/07/2020 registered by Samtanagar Police Station for the offence u/s. 381 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 I say that Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay Rs.70,000/-

towards his liability, the amount of Rs.20,000/- will be paid immediately after quashing of the FIR and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- will be paid within 15 months.

3 The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 agreed to pay Rs.3,20,000/-

lgc                                                                           2 of 5
                                                           (8) criwpst-6335.20.odt

towards their entire liability. The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- immediately after quashing of the FIR and balance amount of Rs.70,000/- within 6 months after quashing of the FIR.

4 I out of my own free will, without there being any pressure and influence withdrawing the allegation leveled in the FIR. I further confirm that I agreed for the settlement and had no objection for quashing of the Criminal Case initiated by me. I further submit that the withdrawal of allegations from Criminal Proceedings is being made without any undue influence, coercion and pressure on me."

4 It is submitted that the present Petitioner No.1 was working as a

servant in the shop run by the 2 nd Respondent. It is also submitted that the

impugned FIR was lodged by the 2 nd Respondent with a view to recover the

amount of stolen goods from her shop by Petitioner No.1, and there was no

intention to prosecute the Petitioners and just to recover the amount of stolen

goods by Petitioner No.1 from the shop of Respondent No.2.

5 The 2nd Respondent is personally present in Court. She is identified

by her advocate. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to agree for

settlement, and the aforesaid affidavit has been filed by her on her own free

will and without any coercion. She further stated that she has no objection for

quashing the impugned FIR lodged against the Petitioners.

6           The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab


lgc                                                                       3 of 5
                                                             (8) criwpst-6335.20.odt

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.

7 Since the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have amicably

settled the dispute and it is submitted that the 2 nd Respondent has lodged the

impugned FIR against the Petitioners with a view to recover the amount of

stolen goods by Petitioner No.1 from her shop, and now she has no intention to

proceed further with the allegations made in the impugned FIR, no fruitful 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

lgc 4 of 5 (8) criwpst-6335.20.odt

purpose would be served in continuing the further investigation/proceedings

arising out of FIR vide CR No.915 of 2020. Since the 2 nd Respondent has no

objection for quashing the FIR, Respondent No.2 is not going to support the

allegations in the impugned FIR and chance of conviction of the Petitioners

would be bleak, and therefore, continuation of further proceedings arising out

of the said FIR, would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse

of process of the 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 FIR is required to be quashed.

9 The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of

prayer clause (c). The Writ Petition 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