Sachin Ramesh Yeole vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 762 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                 1/4                   10-CRWPST-4146-2020.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.01.13
           20:05:31
           +0530         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 4146 OF 2020

           Mr. Sachin Ramesh Yeole
           Adult, aged about 39 years
           Hindu Indian Inhabitants of Bombay
           Occupation: Service,
           At Present residing at 603, 6th Floor,
           Excel Tower, Opp. I.I.T. Main Gate,
           Powai, Mumbai-400076.                                    ...PETITIONER

                    Versus

           1.       The State of Maharashtra

           2.       The Senior Police Inspector of Police
                    Powai Police Station, Mumbai.

           3.       Snehal Sachin Yeole
                    Flat No:- 702, 7th Floor,
                    Atlantis, Hiranandani Gardens,
                    Powai 400076.                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                                                      ...
           Mr. Amit G. Kasbe for Petitioner.
           Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State.
           Ms. Snehal Sachin Yeole, Respondent No. 3- present.
                                              ...
                                       CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                  MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 13, 2021.

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

1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for leave to

amend, so as to take exception to the charge sheet. Leave grated. Amendment

to be carried out forthwith.

           Bhagyawant Punde
                                            2/4                    10-CRWPST-4146-2020.doc

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

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Respondent

No. 3 jointly submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 have amicably

settled the dispute before the Family Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 has tendered

across the bar the affidavit of Respondent No. 3, same is taken on record.

5. Respondent No. 3 is present before this Court. She stated that it

is her voluntary act to enter into the settlement and give consent for quashing

the FIR and charge sheet. It is averred in the affidavit that due to some

misunderstanding, she lodged criminal complaint against the Petitioner at

Powai Police Station at FIR No. 107 of 2020 registered under Sections 324,

506 (2), 323 and 504 of IPC. It is further stated that she has no objection for

quashing the impugned FIR and charge sheet. Since the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and Respondent No. 3 is not interested to pursue

the allegations in the FIR, further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 107 of

2020 registered with Powai Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 506 (2), 323 and 504 of IPC, would be an exercise in futility.

Respondent No. 3 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR and

Bhagyawant Punde 3/4 10-CRWPST-4146-2020.doc

therefore, the chances of conviction of the Petitioner would be remote and

bleak.

6. 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

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.

1    2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde
                                             4/4                     10-CRWPST-4146-2020.doc

7. In the light of submissions made across bar and the averments in

the affidavit of Respondent No. 3, so also interaction with Respondent No. 3,

we are of the considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice and prevent

the abuse of the process of the court the petition of the Petitioner deserves to

be allowed. Accordingly, rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),

which reads thus:-

a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby calling for the investigation papers concerning FIR No. 107 of 2020 from Powai police station, Powai, Mumbai and after examining the legality, validity and/or propriety of the same being in vogue, may be pleased to quash and set aside the same; and also quash the entire proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate's 66th Court at Andheri in Case No:- 1246/PW/2020.

8. The writ petition is allowed to above extent and same stands

disposed of accordingly.

9. All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

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




Bhagyawant Punde