Shaheen Mohmmed Amin Khan And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 9418 Bom

                                                 1/6                              34-WP-10-2021+.doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2021

Shaheen Mohd. Amin Khan & Ors.                                 ...Petitioners

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                ...Respondents
                                 ...
Mr. Ashok Rl Jaiswar for Petitioners.
Mrs. Shilpa Pawar for Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.
                                 ...

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

DATE : 17th JULY, 2021.

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

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed with following substantive prayer:-

a) That the present CR. Vide No. 106/2018, vide court case No. 1168/W/2020, is pending before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate court 46th court Mazgaon Mumbai, may be quash, and set aside by This Hon'ble Court.

Bhagyawant Punde

2/6 34-WP-10-2021+.doc

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and 2 nd

respondent jointly submit that the petitioners and 2 nd respondent

have amicably settled the dispute and 2 nd respondent has filed

affidavit thereby giving consent for quashing the impugned FIR and

chargehsheet.

4. Respondent No. 2 is present before us through video

conferencing. We have interacted with her. She stated that it is her

voluntary act to enter into the amicable settlement and give consent

for quashing the impugned FIR and chargesheet.

5. Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit. Paragraphs 3 to

12 of the said affidavit read as under:-

3. I say that I am filing the present affidavit for the limited purpose to admit that the MOU dated 02/11/2020 executed between myself and the other accused in both the Case Nos. 1168/PW/2018 filed u/s. 498(A), 354, 324, 506 and 34 and 783/ PW/2020 filed u/s. 509, 341, 504 ad 34 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Sewree, Mumbai.

4. I say that I have filed the Case Nos.

(i) 1168/PW/2018 and (ii)783/PW/2020, against the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) who all are the family relatives and therefore, during the pendency of these proceedings the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) approached the Applicant to settle these disputes

Bhagyawant Punde

3/6 34-WP-10-2021+.doc

mutually and pursuant thereto meetings were held between both the parties.

5. I say that pursuant to those meetings both the parties have arrived to

(Original Complainant) and her husband i.e. the Respondent no. 4 (Mr. Modh Matin Khan) shifts to other place, then the family disputes which were arrived in the past and may have arisen in future between the parties can be estopped.

6. I say that the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) made a proposal that they will give the share of the Respondent No. 4 i.e. my husband, to both of us, to purchase and/or take house for their residence and in that residence/place three of them i.e. myself, Respondent no. 4 (husband) and their son viz. Abdul Wadud Khan can reside peacefully.

7. I say that to give a good future and family life to my son viz. Abdul Wadud Khan, who is 8 years old, I thought over the proposal given by the Petitioners (accused) and decided to give a chance to a marriage life.

8. I say that accordingly after discussions, both parties have arrived at a settlement that the Respondent nos. 2 to 7 will hand over a Demand Draft being no. 571071, drawn on Union Bank of India, for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) in the name of the Petitioner No.

from the said amount the Petitioner No 4 along with me will take the place on rent/ownership basis.

9. I say that for the betterment of my son Abdul Wadud Khan who is 8 years old, I

Bhagyawant Punde

4/6 34-WP-10-2021+.doc

agreed for the said proposal given by the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) and accordingly a MOU was executed on 03/11/2020. I say that after execution of the said MOU, the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) filed the above writ petition for quashing both the Case Nos. (i) 1168/PW/2018 and (ii) 783/PW/2020.

10. I say that as per the order dated 30/06/2021, the Petitioners (Orig. Accused) had handed over the Demand Draft being no. 571071 in the name of the Petitioner No. 4 (husband). However, the name printed on the said Demand Draft was incomplete and therefore, the Bank returned the said Demand Draft.

11. I say that therefore, on 05/07/2021 the Petitioners have transferred the said agreed amount of Rs. 7 Lacs from the account of Petitioner No. 1 into the joint

(husband) bearing UTR No. UBINR22021070501566594 dated 06/07/2021 and the Petitioner No. 4 has given the said amount to me, as per the MOU dated 03/11/2021 to take the premises on rent/ownership basis. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the payment transfer form.

12. I say that on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 03/11/2020, I am by my free will withdrawing all the allegations levied against all the accused in Case Nos. (i) 1168/PW/2018 and (ii) 783/PW/2020 and do not want to proceed further in both the cases.

Bhagyawant Punde





                                         5/6                          34-WP-10-2021+.doc

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and

2nd respondent has filed the affidavit thereby giving consent for

quashing the impugned proceedings, no fruitful purpose will be

served by continuing the proceedings i.e. 1168/PW/2018 pending

before the Metropolitan Magistrate 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai,

arising out of CR No. 106/2018 registered with Agripada Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 324, 354,

325, 506 and read with 34 of IPC.

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 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

6/6 34-WP-10-2021+.doc

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.

8. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to

secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of

court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition

is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which is reproduced

hereinabove in para 2.

9. Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition

stands dispose of.

10. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

order.

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

Bhagyawant Punde