Bombay High Court
Pradeep Kantilal Shrishrimal And ... vs Shweta Pradeep Shrishrimal And ... on 12 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
Laxmikant by Laxmikant
G. Chandan
G. Date: (48) cri.apl-412.20.odt
Chandan 2021.01.15
10:22:53 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2020
1] Pradeep Kantital Shrishrimal ]
of Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Age : about 38 yrs. Occ : Business, ]
Residing at 202A, Right Galaxy ]
Sodawala Lane, Opp. Sunita Park ]
Boriwali (W), Mumbai - 400 092 ]
]
2] Kantilal Gulabchand Shrishrimal ]
of Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Age : about 67 yrs. Occ. Business. ]
R/a Near SBI Bank, Old Agra Road, ]
Ghoti, Taluka - Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik ]
]
3] Ashish Chandulal Parmar ]
Age : about 45 yrs. Occ : Doctor, ]
Residing at 201-C, Porwal Complex, ]
60 feet road, Bhayander (W), Mumbai ]
]
4] Narangi Kantilal Shrishrimal ]
Age : about 65 yrs., occ : Housewife, ]
]
5] Nancy M. Raka ]
Age about 38 yrs, Occ : Doctor ]
Residing at 202A, Right Galaxy, ]
Sodawala Lane, Opp. Sunita Park ]
Boriwali (W), Mumbai - 400 092 ]
]
6] Sangeeta Ashish Parmar ]
Age about 45 yrs. Occ : Doctor, ]
Residing at 201-C, Porwal Complex, ]
60 feet road, Bhayander (W), Mumbai. ]..... Applicants.
versus
1] Shweta Pradeep Shrishrimal ]
Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Age about 37 yrs, Occ : Housewife, ]
lgc 1 of 5
(48) cri.apl-412.20.odt
Residing at Flat No.604, E-Building, ]
Shankar Maharaj CHS, Munjeri ]
Bibvewadi, Pune - 411037 ]
]
2] State of Maharashtra ]
(through the Public Prosecutor, High ]
Court, Mumbai - 400 032) ]..... Respondents.
Mr. Rajesh M Patil i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for the Applicants.
Mr. Santaram Tarale for Respondent No.1.
Dr. F R Shaikh, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
DATE : 12th JANUARY 2021
JUDGMENT (PER S S SHINDE, J)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the
parties and heard finally.
2 This Application is filed for the following substantial relief :-
(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
Complaint bearing FIR No.147/2016 and Chargesheet
No.118/2017 and all proceedings in Session Case
No.252/2018 pending before the Ld. Court of Assistant
Session Judge at Pune;
3 Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and Respondent
No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 have filed the Consent Terms before the
Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.
lgc 2 of 5
(48) cri.apl-412.20.odt
4 The 1st Respondent has filed her affidavit before this Court. The
same is taken on record. The 1 st Respondent is personally present before this
Court. On a specific query to her whether such an amicable settlement has
arrived at on her own free will, without any coercion and she has no objection
for quashing the FIR, she has stated that on her own will she has entered into
such amicable settlement and she has not no objection for quashing the FIR.
5 In her affidavit, the 1st Respondent has stated that the dispute
between her and the applicants is of civil nature not involving public policy
and now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and that
there are no claims or grievances of whatsoever nature between the parties,
therefore, she has no objection to quash the impugned FIR.
6 Applicant No.1 has also filed affidavit. He is personally present
before this Court. On a specific query to him, he has stated that he will abide
by the Consent Terms and the averments and commitments made in the
affidavit.
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,
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 3 of 5
(48) cri.apl-412.20.odt
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.
8 Since the Applicants and the Respondent No.1 have amicably
settled the dispute, no purpose would be served in continuing the further
proceedings of Sessions Case No.252/2018 and Chargesheet No.118/2017. We
are therefore inclined to allow this Application as Respondent No.1 is not going
to support the allegations in the impugned FIR and chance of conviction of the
Applicants would be remote and 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.
lgc 4 of 5
(48) cri.apl-412.20.odt
9 In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Application deserves to be
allowed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads
thus:-
(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the Complaint
bearing FIR No.147/2016 and Chargesheet
No.118/2017 and all proceedings in Session Case
No.252/2018 pending before the Ld. Court of Assistant
Session Judge at Pune;
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. The Criminal Application stands
disposed of accordingly.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 5 of 5
