Bombay High Court
Sandeep Subhash Lad And Anr vs Rupesh Vishwanath Pawar And Anr on 30 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Sherla V.
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
VISHWANATH
SATYANARAYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHERLA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
Digitally signed by
VISHWANATH
SATYANARAYANA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1456 OF 2019
SHERLA
Date: 2021.07.31
16:50:13 +0530
Sandeep Subhash Lad & another ... Petitioners
Vs.
Rupesh Vishwanath Pawar & another ... Respondents
Mr.Vinod Kashid for the Petitioners
Mr.Abdul Shaikh for Respondent No.1
Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent - State
Respondent No.1 present through VC
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED: JULY 30, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):
1. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition. Leave granted.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.
3. This Petition takes exception to filing of First Information
Report No.6 of 2019 registered with Meghwadi Police Station,
Page 1 of 6
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
Mumbai for the offence punishable under section 420 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent
chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Respondent No.1 jointly submit that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute. Our attention is invited to the consent
terms/compromise deed entered into between them.
5. Respondent No.1 is present through video conferencing for
interaction. We have interacted with him. He stated that it is his
voluntary act to enter into the amicable settlement and sign the
consent terms/compromise deed. He stated that he has received
the amount as stated in the consent terms/compromise deed. He
has no objection for quashing the impugned First Information
Report / chargesheet.
6. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit,
in paragraphs 3 to 8, it is stated as under:
"3) I state that we have settled our issue amicably and out
of the aforesaid alleged amount of Rs.11,20,000/- (Rupees
Eleven Lakh, twenty thousand) the Petitioner/Applicant No.2
viz. Pallavi Sandeep Lad has paid an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh) by Cheque bearing
Page 2 of 6
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
No.044472, drawn on Axis Bank, Bandra Reclamation
Branch, dtd. 12-03-2019 and the remaining payment of
Rs.8,20,000/- (rupees Eight Lakh, twenty thousand only) is
already paid by the Petitioner/Applicant No.1 viz. Sandeep
Subhash Lad, in cash on Dtd. 8-3-2019 and I, hereby
acknowledge the receipt of the payment received by them
from the aforesaid Petitioners/Applicants and the I undertake
that I will not claim any aforesaid amount from the
Petitioners/Applicants in future and also further undertake
that I would not make any complaints against the abovesaid
Petitioners/Applicants in future with regards to the same
subject matter.
4) I state that, It would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between us and the present Applicants/petitioners and to
secure the end of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
is put to an end if the consent is given by me to quash the
criminal proceeding / FIR.
5) I state that, to prevent the abuse of process of law and
to secure the ends of justice, I agree to the quashing of
criminal complaint in question and stated in consent terms
that the matter has been settled out of my own free will, as
the matter has been settled and compromised amicably so
there would be an extra ordinary delay in the process of law
if the legal proceeding between us are carried on, therefore
this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction U/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.
to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends of justice.
6) I state that in the facts and circumstances of this case
and in view of this Affidavit & Compromise Deed/Consent
Terms made by me, the criminal complaint in question
warrants to be put to an end proceedings emanating
thereupon need to be quashed, it is submitted that the
aforesaid offences are entirely personal in nature and
therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and if the
compromise deed would bring about peace and would
Page 3 of 6
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
secure ends of justice, it is proper to quash the said
proceeding without waste of time and energy in
compoundable offences.
7) I state that we, both parties have reached the
settlement and on the basis this Affidavit & Consent Terms, is
filed for quashing criminal proceeding/FIR.
8) I state that, I have made this Affidavit & consent term
without any coercion, undue influence threat & pressure."
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, 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Page 4 of 6
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
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.
8. In the light of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, no
fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in
relation to the C.R. No.6 of 2019 registered with Meghwadi Police
Station, Mumbai, which would be tantamount to abuse of the
process of the concerned Court. So also, since Respondent No.1
is not going to support the case of the prosecution, chances of
conviction of the petitioner would be remote and bleak. However,
in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, it would be
appropriate to quash the impugned First Information Report /
chargesheet, subject to payment of costs.
9. In view of the above, in order to secure the ends of justice
and prevent the abuse of process of the concerned Court, the
petition deserves to be allowed subject to the petitioner depositing
costs. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
Page 5 of 6
9_WP.1456.2019-j.doc
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the added prayer
clause (a1) subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,000/-
as costs within one week from today in the below mentioned
account :
"Bank Name: Bank of India
Branch Name: Mumbai Main branch, Fort,
Mumbai.
Account Name: "Bar Council of Maharashtra
and Goa Covid-19"
Account No.: 000110110013597
IFSC : BKID0000001
ii) Deposit of costs as aforesaid, shall be condition
precedent for allowing the prayer of the petitioner for
quashing of the impugned First Information
Report/chargesheet.
10. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
11. Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
