Bombay High Court
Deepak Sureshkumar Tibrewala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.31
10:33:20 +0530 (16) cri.apl-545.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2020
Deepak Sureshkumar Tibrewala ]
Age : 34 years, Occ : Nil ]
R/o - Plot No.199-B, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangbad ].... Applicant
versus
1] State of Maharashtra ]
Through Police Inspector ]
Police Station Kothrud, ]
Pune ]
]
2] Prerna Deepak Tibrewala ]
(Prerna Ramgopal Kedia) ]
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service ]
R/o. Plot No.100, Mahatma Society ]
Lane No.6, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, ]
Kothrud Road, Pune ]..... Respondents.
Mr. C P Sengaonkar for the Applicant.
Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Chetan Agarwal for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present through video conferencing.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE : 30th JULY 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 The Applicant has filed this Application for the following
lgc 1 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt
substantial relief :-
"(B) The Crime No.150/2017, registered at Kothrud Police
Station for the offences under 419 of THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860, 66(c), 66(d) OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT and the consequent criminal
proceedings Regular Criminal Case No.4963/2018
(State v/s. Deepak) pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class (17) at Pune, for offences under 419 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 66(c), 66(d) OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT be quashed and set
aside."
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute.
4 The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court through Video
Conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2
identified the 2nd Respondent. When we interacted with the 2 nd Respondent,
she stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into amicable settlement. She has
no objection for quashing the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet.
5 In support of her aforesaid statements, the 2 nd Respondent has
filed her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 4 to 10, the 2 nd Respondent
has stated thus :-
"4 I say I admitted that we have amicably settled the above
lgc 2 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt
said matter out of court.
5 I say that I and applicant No.1 married on 25/01/2015
at Aayush Resort. Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad as per the
Hindu rites and customs.
6 I say the contentions state in Para No.3 are admitted by
me. We have filed compromise deed before the Family
Court Pune.
7 I say the contentions stated in grounds of applications
are admitted to me.
8 I say that as we have settled our dispute out of court and
filed compromise deed in the divorce petition filed by me
before the Honourable Family Court Pune there is no
point in proceeding with the case bearing RCC
4963/2018.
9 I say that, I withdraw all the allegations mentioned in
the complaint filed by me against Applicant in the
Complaint bearing Crime No.150/2017.
10 I say I do not want to proceed with the complaint filed
by me against the applicant. I have no objection if the
Honourable Justice is pleased to quash the complaint
filed by me."
6 Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the 2 nd
Respondent has stated before this Court that it is her voluntary act to enter into
the settlement without any coercion or duress, no fruitful purpose will be
served by continuing the further proceedings in RCC No.4963/2018 and the
FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 registered with Kothrud Police Station Pune at
the instance of the 2nd Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the
lgc 3 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt
Information Technology Act.
8 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 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 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.
9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the 2nd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made in
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 4 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt
the impugned FIR and continuation of further proceedings in RCC
No.4963/2018 and the FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 would tantamount to
the abuse of the process of the Court. Since the Respondent No.2 is not going
to support the allegations in the FIR, the chances of conviction of the Applicant
would be remote and bleak. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Court and to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and
set aside impugned FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 registered with Kothrud
Police Station Pune at the instance of the 2nd Respondent for the offence
punishable under Sections 419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, and the criminal
proceedings in RCC No.4963/2018
10 In that view of the matter, the Application deserves to be allowed and,
the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule made absolute in the
aforesaid terms. The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 5 of 5
