Mayur Shantilal Motani vs State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 9420 Bom

                                                 1/5                           28-APL-1285-2019+.doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2019

Mayur Shantilal Motani                                         ...Applicant

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                ...Respondents
                                  ...
Mr. Pranav Avhad a/w. Ms. Darshana Naval i/by. White and Brief
Advocates and Solicitors for applicant.
Mr. Harsh Buch i/by. MZM Legal for Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing.
Mrs. A.S. Pai, PP 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 application is filed with the following substantive

prayer:-

a) Allow this Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by quashing the FIR (being C.R. No. 161 of 2015) dated 08.10.2015 lodged under section 354(d), 506, 509 of the IPC and section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 lodged with Cyber Police Station and the Chargesheet filed by Cyber Police Station before the 37 th Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade.

Bhagyawant Punde

2/5 28-APL-1285-2019+.doc

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant and

Respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the applicant and 2 nd

respondent have amicably settled the dispute and the 2 nd

respondent has filed affidavit thereby giving consent for quashing

the impugned FIR and chargesheet.

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

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

voluntary act without any coercion 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 1 to

5 of the said affidavit reads as under:-

1. I say that I had filed an FIR

October 2015 against the Applicant/Original Accused; mentioned in the cause title above; lodged under Sections 354(d), 506, 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 with the Cyber Police Station.

2. I say that the concerned Police station subsequently filed the Chargesheet in the said FIR before the Ld.

37th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade under Sections 354(d), 506,

Bhagyawant Punde

3/5 28-APL-1285-2019+.doc

509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 in case bearing no.

857/PW/2016.

3. I say that the Applicant/Original Accused and I have mutually resolved all our differences, reached an amicable settlement and dissolved our marriage by filing consent terms in Petition A-3053 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Family Court at Bandra.

4. I say that in light of dissolution of our marriage and resolution of differences between us, I am consenting to quash the criminal proceedings and have no objection if the subject FIR is quashed and set aside.

5. I say that all the contents mentioned hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I am making this Affidavit out of my own free will and without any pressure or coercion in the Criminal Application No. 1285 of 2019 filed by the Applicant/Original Accused herein to

of 2015 dated 08 October 2015 lodged under Sections 354(d), 506, 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 with the Cyber Police Station against the Applicant/Original Accused.

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and

2nd respondent has filed the affidavit thereby giving consent for

quashing the impugned FIR and chargesheet, no fruitful purpose

will be served by continuing the further proceedings of

Bhagyawant Punde

4/5 28-APL-1285-2019+.doc

PW/857/2016 pending before the 37 th Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Esplanade, arising out of FIR bearing C.R. 161 of 2015,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(d), 506,

509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000.

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

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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

5/5 28-APL-1285-2019+.doc

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 view of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to secure

the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of Court,

the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application

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

hereinabove in para no. 2.

9. Rule made absolute to above extent. The application

stands disposed of.

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

order.

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

Bhagyawant Punde