Manish Surendra Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 735 Bom

                                                       19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

DDR
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 5850 OF 2020

      Manish Surendra Jain
      Age : 43 years, Occ. Service,
      A 3 902, Ashok Towers,
      Off Milfitaary Road, Marolf,
      Andheri Easta, Mumbai.                      ..Petaitaioner
             vs.
      1. Staatae of Maharashtara
      tahrough Senior Inspectaor of Polfice,
      Andheri Polfice Staataion, Andheri, Mumbai.

      2. Mrs. Ujjwalfa Undre
      Age : 33 years, Occ. Service,
      residing ata Smitaa Niwas, Darekar Chawlf,
      Room No.9, Kajupada, Borivalfi (Easta),
      Mumbai.                                           ..Respondenta
                              ----------------------------
      Mr. Shailfendra Singh for petaitaioner.
      Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP a/w. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Staatae.
      Mr. P.V. Nichani a/w. Mrs. Vikas Kumbhar i/b. P.V. Nichani & Co. for
      respondenta No.2.
                              ----------------------------

                         CORAM               :   S.S.SHINDE &
                                                 M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

                         RESERVED ON :           JANUARY 5, 2021.

                         PRONOUNCED ON :           JANUARY 13, 2021.


      JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)

            Rulfe. Rulfe is made retaurnablfe fortahwitah. Heard fnalflfy witah

      tahe consenta of tahe lfearned counself appearing for tahe partaies.




                                                                              1/7
                                                         19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

2.    The petaitaioner has flfed tahis Petaitaion under Artaiclfe 226 of tahe

Constaitautaion of India for quashing of tahe Firsta Informataion Reporta

bearing C.R.No.795 of 2020 ('FIR' for shorta) registaered by tahe

Andheri Polfice Staataion for tahe alflfeged offences punishablfe under

Sectaions 354A, 506 of tahe Indian Penalf Code ('IPC' for shorta).



3.    The frsta informanta - respondenta No.2 alflfeged tahata tahe

petaitaioner (originalf accused) was a superior ofcer ata tahe

estaablfishmenta where tahe respondenta No.2 was working. Ita is

alflfeged tahata on 26/8/2020, tahe petaitaioner misbehaved witah her

and commitataed an offence punishablfe under Sectaions 354A and

506 of tahe IPC.



4.    Learned counself for tahe partaies submita tahata tahey have

amicablfy decided tao resolfve tahe disputae. The respondenta No.2

has flfed an afdavita in tahis Courta. The relfevanta portaion of which

reads tahus :

      "5.    I say tahata witah tahe intaerventaion of familfy friend and
      relfataives I have setatalfed tahe disputae witah Manish Jain outa of courta.


      6.     I say tahata I do nota wanta any futaure consequences posta my
      married lfife hence I wanta tao witahdraw and quash tahe FIR being
      CR.No. 795 of 2020 registaered againsta Manish Jain.


      7.     I say tahata I am making tahis Afdavita outa of my own free wilflf
      and witahouta any undue infuence, force and coercion.

                                                                                2/7
                                                      19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

       8.    I say tahata I am making tahis afdavita tao be taendered tao tahe
       Hon'blfe High Courta of Judicataure ata Bombay and/or subordinatae
       courta for quashing tahe CR.No.795 of 2020 registaered witah
       Andheri Polfice Staataion againsta Manish Jain."



5.    The respondenta No.2 is identaifed by her Advocatae. We have

intaeractaed witah tahe respondenta No.2. She reitaerataed her staand as

mentaioned in tahe afdavita and submitataed tahata she does nota wish

tao press tahe alflfegataions againsta tahe petaitaioner and wantas tao move

ahead in lfife and setatalfe in matarimony. During tahe intaeractaion she

staataed tahata tahere is no pressure or coercion exertaed on her and

tahata tahe consenta for quashing of tahe FIR is on her own free wilflf

and a volfuntaary acta.



6.    Having intaeractaed witah tahe respondenta No.2 and aftaer going

tahrough tahe afdavita flfed by her, we are sataisfed tahata tahe

respondenta No.2 is nota going tao depose againsta tahe petaitaioner

and taherefore, containuing tahe criminalf prosecutaion woulfd be an

exercise in futailfitay and woulfd be a cause of oppression tao tahe

respondenta No.2 as welflf.



7.    Considering tahe nataure of tahe alflfegataions and from tahe

intaeractaion which we had from tahe respondenta No.2, ita is

apparenta tahata she does nota wanta tao proceed witah tahe criminalf



                                                                            3/7
                                                     19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

case and wantas tao move on in lfife. In tahese circumstaances, in our

opinion, containuing tahe criminalf prosecutaion woulfd be an abuse

of tahe process of any Courta and ita woulfd be in tahe besta intaeresta of

tahe partaies if tahe FIR is quashed by consenta.



8.       The Supreme Courta in tahe case of Giansingh v. State of

Punjab and Another1 has helfd tahata, tahe criminalf cases having

overwhelfminglfy and predominatainglfy civilf favour staand on a

differenta footaing for tahe purposes of quashing, partaiculfarlfy tahe

offences arising from commercialf, fnancialf, mercantailfe, civilf,

partanership or such lfike taransactaions or tahe offence arising outa of

matarimony relfataing tao dowry, etac. or tahe familfy disputaes where

tahe wrong is basicalflfy privatae or personalf in nataure and tahe

partaies have resolfves taheir entaire disputae. In tahis cataegory of

cases, tahe High Courta may quash tahe criminalf proceedings if in itas

view, because of tahe compromise betaween tahe offender and tahe

victaim, tahe possibilfitay of convictaion is remotae and blfeak and

containuataion of tahe criminalf case woulfd puta tahe accused tao greata

oppression and prejudice and extareme injustaice woulfd be caused

tao him by nota quashing tahe criminalf case despitae fulflf and

complfetae setatalfementa and compromise witah tahe victaim. Ita has alfso

helfd inherenta power is of wide plfenitaude witah no staatautaory


1    2012 (10) SCC 303

                                                                           4/7
                                                                 19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

lfimitaataion buta ita has tao be exercised in accord witah tahe guidelfine

engraftaed in such power viz.: (i) tao secure tahe ends of justaice, or

(ii) tao preventa abuse of tahe process of any courta.



9.        We have alfso gone tahrough tahe decisions relfied upon by

lfearned counself for tahe petaitaioner in tahe folflfowing cases :

(a)       Sataisha s/o. Shivanna vs. The Staatae of Karnataaka and

anotaher.2

(b)       Kapilf Anand vs. Staatae of Rajastahan and anotaher3



10.       In any case, we are of tahe view tahata containuataion of tahe

criminalf proceeding woulfd taantaamounta of tahe abuse of tahe

process of Courta and considering tahe staand taaken by tahe

respondenta No.2, tahe possibilfitay of convictaion appears tao be very

remotae and blfeak and taherefore, tahe presenta Petaitaion deserves tao

be alflfowed. However, tahis is a fta case tao impose costas on tahe

petaitaioner. Hence tahe folflfowing order :

                                        ORDER

(i) The Writa Petaitaion is alflfowed in taerms of prayer Clfause (a),

which reads tahus :

"a). This Hon'blfe Courta be plfeased tao quash and seta aside

tahe said complfainta F.I.R. bearing no. 795 of 2020 registaered

2 CRL.P.NO. 868/2017 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka on 22/8/2017.

3 2015(3) RLW 2054 (Raj.)

19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

witah Andheri Polfice Staataion for offences punishablfe u/s

354A and 506 of Indian Penalf Code."

(ii) The petaitaioner tao pay a costa of Rs.1,00,000/- in tahe

folflfowing accounta witahin a period of 4 weeks from taoday :

Name of Account Holder for J.J. Fund

DY. COMMI. (CHILD DEVELOP) AND MEM. SECY. & TRY M S

CHILD FUND.

Account No. : 11099464354

Name and Address of Bank

Staatae Bank of India

Pune Main Branch

Colflfectaor Ofce Compound, Pune.

Branch Code : 454

IFSC : SBIN0000454

MICR : 411002002

(iii) Paymenta of costa is conditaion precedenta tao tahe quashing of

tahe FIR.

11. Rulfe is made absolfutae in tahe above taerms.

12. The Writa Petaitaion is disposed of accordinglfy.

19. cri.wpst. 5850-2020.doc

Digitally 13. This judgmenta wilflf be digitaalflfy signed by tahe Personalf signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date: Assistaanta of tahis Courta. Alflf concerned wilflf acta on productaion by fax 2021.01.13 15:15:13 +0530 or emailf of a digitaalflfy signed copy of tahis judgmenta.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)