Kashap Anantrai Mehta And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9269 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                             12_wp.6361.2019-J.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6361 OF 2019

            Kashap Anantrai Mehta & Others                                      ... Petitioners
                              Vs.
            State of Maharashtra & another                                  ... Respondents



            Ms.Aditi Naikare for the Petitioners
            Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent - State
            Dr.S.S. Karmarkar i/b Karmarkar & Associates for Respondent
            No.2
            Respondent No.2 - present through V.C.

                                                CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATED: JULY 15, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. This Petition takes exception to filing of First Information

Report No.453 of 2016 for offences punishable under sections

498-A, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

registered with Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai and the

consequent Criminal Case No.1026/PW/2017 in the Court of

Metropolitan Magistrate, 73rd Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai.

12_wp.6361.2019-J.doc

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably

settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms have been

filed before the Family Court at Bandra. The proceedings

instituted before the Family Court at Bandra have been finally

disposed of.

4. Respondent No.2 is present and we have interacted with her

through video conferencing. She stated that it is her voluntary act

to enter into amicable settlement with the petitioners and to

consent for quashing the First Information Report and the

chargesheet. She stated that the proceedings before the Family

Court at Bandra have already been disposed of.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit,

in paragraphs 1 to 4, it is stated as under:

"1. I say that, I am the First Informant in CC No.1026/PW/2017 pending before the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate's 73rd Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai arising out of FIR bearing CR No.453/2016 registered by the Pant Nagar Police Station on 30th November, 2016, for the offence u/sec. 498-A, 406 read with 34 of IPC. I say that, I have perused the Petition filed by the Petitioners and as such I am competent to depose the present Affidavit.

12_wp.6361.2019-J.doc

2. I say that, pursuant to the mediation and the consent terms filed before the Hon'ble Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, I say that, I have no objection if the present Petition is allowed and CC. No.1026/PW/2017 pending before the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate's 73rd Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No.453/2016 registered by the Pant Nagar Police Station on 30 th November, 2016 for the offence u/sec.498-A, 406 read with 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. I say that, we have settled the disputes in terms of Consent Terms Dated 14/012/2019 (sic) at Exhibit-C to the Petition.

3. I say that, it is assured by the Petitioners that, as a condition for quashing the said case, if this Hon'ble Court is inclined to direct to deposit/pay any amount, whatsoever nature it, it shall be responsibility of the Petitioners to comply it on behalf of the Respondent No.2 as well.

4. I say that, I am deposing the present Affidavit to file it before this Hon'ble Court, at my free will, without any force, fraud or coercion, as if it is, I have no objection if the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)."

6. Since there is an amicable settlement between the parties

and as Respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed with the

prosecution, further proceedings arising out of First Information

Report No.453 of 2016 would be an exercise in futility and an

abuse of process of the Court. In that view of the matter, the

petition deserves to be allowed.

12_wp.6361.2019-J.doc

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

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








                                                               12_wp.6361.2019-J.doc

8. In the light of the foregoing paragraphs, in order to secure

the ends of justice and to prevent further abuse of the process of

said Court, we are inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the

petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as

under:

"a. That by an Order of this Hon'ble Court the charge sheet being CC No.1026/PW/2017 pending in Ld. 73 rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vikhroli and C.R. No.453/2016 registered by the Pantnagar Police Station on 30th November, 2016 u/s.498 (A), 406 and 34 of the IPC against all Petitioners and accused mentioned therein be quashed and set aside on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

9. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition stands

disposed off accordingly.

             (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                           (S.S. SHINDE, J.)