Bombay High Court
Gajendra S/O. Anil Singhvi And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
16-APL255-2021.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 255 OF 2021
Gajendra s/o Anil Singhvi & ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents
Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, a/w Mr. V. V. Kabade, for the
Applicants.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State/Respondent no.1.
Mr. R. R. Karpe, for respondent no.2.
Ms. Gunjan Gandhi, Respondent no.2 present through
VC and interacted.
CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATED: 6th JULY, 2021
(Through V.C.)
JUDGMENT : PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnalll.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") to quash Regular
Criminal Case No.1436 of 2017, arising out of CR No.84 of 2017,
registered at Bhalander Police Station and DV Case No.152/DV/
2017, pending on the fle of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Thane.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:27 :::
16-APL255-2021.DOC
3. Shorn of unnecessarl details the background facts can be
stated as under:
(a) The marriage of applicant no.1 Gajendra was
solemnized with respondent no.2 Gunjan on 18th December,
2015. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the parents and applicant no.4
Maluri is the sister of applicant no.1. Since inception the
marital life of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was afficted
with discord. Respondent no.2 alleged that the applicants made
an unlawful demand of monel and subjected her to crueltl in
order to coerce her to meet the said unlawful demand. She was
turned out of her matrimonial home. She was relieved of the
ornaments and valuable articles. Hence, with aforesaid
allegations respondent no.2 lodged report at Bhalander Police
Station. Crime was registered at CR No.84 of 2017 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code").
An application for protection under Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, bearing No.152/DV/2017 has also
been fled bl respondent no.2.
4. The applicants claim that during the intervening period,
the parties have amicabll resolved all the disputes. Applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2 have also agreed to dissolve the
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:27 :::
16-APL255-2021.DOC
marriage bl mutual consent. Consent Terms have, thus, been
fled. Accordingll thel have fled a petition for divorce bl
mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Hence this application.
5. The parties have fled the Consent Terms (Exhibit-D).
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Consent Terms read as under:
"6. The applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 shall fle
mutual divorce petition U/s. 13(B)(1) & (2) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before the Hon'ble Court of CJSD,
Thane.
7. The respondent no.2 shall extend full cooperation
in getting the proceedings quashed through Sec.482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of RCC No.1436/2017 in FIR
No.84/2017 under Section 498(a), 406, 323, 504, 506 &
34 of the IPC at instance Bhalander Police Station,
Bhalander (W), pending before Hon'ble JMFC Court
Thane and as well as Case No.152/DV/2017 which is
pending before Hon'ble JMFC Court Thane which the
parties would be fling soon after this proceedings are
verifed and fled, which would be fled bl Petitioners as
mutualll agreed.
8. The parties shall mutualll fle the quashing
petition before the Hon'ble Bombal High Court to get
said case quashed being RCC No.1436/2017 in FIR
No.84/2017 under Section 498(a), 406, 323, 504, 506 &
34 of the IPC at instance Bhalander Police Station,
Bhalander (W), pending before Hon'ble JMFC Court
Thane. The applicant no.1 shall give her consent to all
other accused in the said case. The parties shall also
fle the certifed order copies of the said disposed cases
before this Hon'ble Court.
9. The applicant no.1 husband have agreed to give
and respondent no.2 wife have agreed to take a
lumpsum amount one time mutualll agreed permanent
alimonl of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fiftl
Thousands onll) to the applicant no.1 wife towards
settlement against her claims of marriage expenses, if
anl, and for her past, present and future claim of
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:27 :::
16-APL255-2021.DOC
maintenance or alimonl, bl whatever nomenclature it is
known. The said Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs
Fiftl Thousands onll) shall be given bl the respondent
no.2 to the applicant no.1 in following parts:
(a) The applicant no.1 has paid the sum of
Rs.4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventl-fve
Thousands onll) to the respondent no.2 bl
demand draft in favour Gunjan Dilip Gandhi at
the time of fling of the mutual divorce petition
and applicant no.1 shall acknowledge the receipt
of the same.
(b) The applicant no.1 shall give the balance sum of
Rs.Rs.4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventl-
fve Thousands onll) to the respondent no.2 bl
demand draft in favour Gunjan Dilip Gandhi on
the dal of divorce decree i.e. at the time of fling
of "NO Claims Affdavits" before the Hon'ble
Court before whom the said mutual divorce
petition is fled."
6. Respondent no.2 Mrs. Gunjan appeared before the Court
through Video Conferencing. She was identifed bl Ms. Karpe,
the learned Counsel for respondent no.2.
7. Respondent no.2 submitted before the court that she has
voluntarill settled the dispute with the applicants out of her
own volition. She has agreed to the terms of settlement
recorded in the Consent Terms. She and applicant no.1 have
decided to dissolve the marriage bl mutual consent. There is no
coercion or duress. In view of the settlement, she does not
intend to prosecute the applicants and the prosecution mal
thus be quashed.
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:27 :::
16-APL255-2021.DOC
8. From the perusal of the material on record, it becomes
evident that the genesis of the prosecution was the matrimonial
dispute between the applicants and respondent no.2. The
parties have decided to settle the matrimonial dispute. The
terms of the settlement have been incorporated in the Consent
Terms (Exhibit-D). Respondent no.2 admits the contents
thereof and categoricalll informs the Court that she has
voluntarill agreed for the amicable resolution of the dispute in
accordance with the said terms.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, in our view, the continuation of
the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose. With the
settlement of the dispute, the possibilitl of the prosecution
ending in conviction is extremell remote. As the applicant no.1
and respondent no.2 have decided to amicabll part wals and
move in life, the continuation of the prosecution would cause
grave prejudice to the parties and also constitute an abuse of
the process of the Court. Therefore, in order to secure the ends
of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, we
are inclined to allow the application. Since the genesis of the
prosecution is in the matrimonial dispute, the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code would be justifable.
5/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2021 20:24:27 :::
16-APL255-2021.DOC
10. Hence the following order:
: ORDER :
(i) The application stands allowed in terms of praler
Clause (B).
(ii) RCC No.1436 of 2017, arising out CR No.84/2017
registered with Bhalander Police Station and DV
Case No.152/DV/2017, pending on the fle of the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, stand
quashed and set aside.
11. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]
