Ajay Anand Dubal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9538 Bom

                                               CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC



                                                                     Santosh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 542 OF 2021

     Mr. Ajay Anand Dubal
     Adult 41 years, Indian Inhabitant,
     Occupation : Service, residing at 205
     'E' Wing, Sector - 36, Suraj Complex,
     Komothe, Panvel, Navi Mumbai,
     Maharashtra - 410 209                                  ...Applicant
                       Versus
1.   State of Maharahtra
     At the instance of Kamothe Police
     Station, Navi Mumbai
2.   Mrs. Prachi Ajay Dubal
     Adult 32 years, Indian Inhabitant
     Occupation : ----
     Presently having address at New
     Sandip Co-operative Society, "B' wing,
     Shastri Nagar, Kalva (West), Thane.               ...Respondents

                              WITH
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1403 OF 2018

1.   Anand Chandu Dubal
     Adult 70 years, Indian Inhabitant
     Occupation : Business
2.   Mrs. Uma Anand Dubal
     Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
     Occupation -
3.   Mr. Abhiit Anand Dubal, Age : 28
     All residing at 505 "E" Wing, Section -
     36, Suraj Complex, Komothe, Panvel,
     Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra - 410209                    ...Applicants
                       Versus
1.   State of Maharahtra
     At the instance of Kamothe Police
     Station, Navi Mumbai
2.   Mrs. Prachi Ajay Dubal
     Adult ---- years, Indian Inhabitant

                                1/6


 ::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 05:55:23 :::
                                                      CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC

     Occupation : ---
     Presently having address at New
     Sandip Co-operative Society, "B' wing,
     Shastri Nagar, Kalva (West), Thane.


Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, for the Applicants in both petitions.
Mr. Nikhil Waje, for Respondent no.2 in both petitions.
Mr. V. B. Knondedeshmukh, APP for the State.
Respondent no.2 is present through Video Conferencing and
      interacted in APL/542/2021.


                                CORAM:     S. S. SHINDE &
                                           N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
                                DATED:     20th 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 fnally.

2. These applications are preferred to quash Regular

Criminal Case No.503 of 2019, pending on the fle of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, arising out of FIR

No.124/2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 377,

498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code"). The applicant in Criminal

Application No.542 of 2021 is the husband of respondent no.2 -

the frst informant. The applicants in Criminal Application

No.1403 of 2018, are the in-laws of respondent no.2.

CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC

3. Mr. Sathyanarayanan, the learned Counsel for the

applicants and Mr. Waje, the learned Counsel for respondent

no.2 make a joint statement that, in the intervening period, the

applicants and respondent no.2 have amicably resolved the

dispute. The parties have executed Consent Terms. In

pursuance thereof, the applicant Ajay and respondent no.2

Prachi have fled a petition for divorce by mutual consent before

the Family Court, Thane, under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

4. Respondent no.2 Mrs. Prachi is present before the Court.

During the course of interaction, respondent no.2 informed the

Court that she has decided to resolve the dispute amicably, on

her own volition. There is no coercion or duress. She claimed to

have executed the Consent Terms voluntarily. Clause nos.1, 3,

6, 7 and 9 of the Consent Terms read as under:

"(1) Party of the SECOND PART has agreed to pay the party of FIRST PART a lumpsum amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards her permanent maintenance/alimony;

(3) The party of the FIRST PART states that she has received her Gold Articles from SECOND PART before fling of the present petition.

(6) Both parties maintain that save and except above matters no other cases are pending and both parties shall not interfere to each other's life and party of the FIRST PART who has written complaints to the offce of the SECOND PART and all other competent Authorities/organizations, shall withdraw the same on the day of signing this present and not pursue the same and further she would not make any complaints to the

CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC

offce of the party of the SECOND PART or to any other Public Authorities / Bodies and / or Private Bodies in future.

(7) Both parties will not fne any civil, criminal or complaint of any nature in police station or court of law in future.

(9) The Parties are entering into the consent terms out of their own free will, accord and not infuence by any force or undue infuence."

5. Mrs. Prachi, respondent no.2, further informed the Court

that she has received tranches of compensation amount, agreed

to be paid as per the above Consent Terms. Respondent no.2

has also fled an affdavit before this Court. Paragraphs 4 to 7

of the affdavit read as under:

"4. I say that I have settled all disputes with Petitioner herein and have amicably entered / executed consent terms dated 25.03.2021. The said consent terms are annexed at Exhibit B to the petition.

5. I say that pursuant to the said consent terms I have also fled petition for divorce by mutual consent before Ld. Family Court Thane being Marriage Petition No.F297/2021.

6. I say that I have no objection and grievances against the Petitioner and his family members if the present petition is allowed and the said Criminal Case being R.C.C.No.503 of 2019 and said FIR being quashed.

7. I say that I have settled all disputes with the Petitioner and his family members amicably and does not wish to prosecute any case/complaint against them pursuant to the consent terms dated 25.03.2021."

6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and statements in

the Consent Terms and affdavit of respondent no.2, we have

perused the material on record. From the averments in the FIR

CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC

it becomes evident that the marital discord between the

applicant Ajay and respondent no.2 is the genesis of the instant

prosecution and the other proceedings between the parties. It

seems that the parties have decided to bury the hatchet and

settle the dispute in its entirety. The applicant Ajay and

respondent no.2 have also agreed to dissolve the marriage by

mutual consent and thus instituted a petition being Marriage

Petition No.F297 of 2021 before the Family Court. In this view

of the matter, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing

the prosecution. In view of the settlement arrived at between

the parties, the possibility of the prosecution ending in a

conviction is very remote and bleak. Continuation of

prosecution, in such circumstances, would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court. It will also cause grave prejudice not

only to the applicants but respondent no.2 as well.

7. A useful reference in this context can be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another1, wherein the Supreme Court has

observed as under;

"61......... the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

CRIAPL542-2021+.DOC

arising from commercial, fnancial, 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 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. The aforesaid pronouncement applies with equal force to

the facts of the case at hand. In order to secure the ends of

justice and prevent the abuse the process of the Court, we are

persuaded to quash the prosecution.

9. Hence the following order:

: ORDER :

       (i)      The applications stand allowed.

       (ii)     Regular Criminal Case No.503 of 2019, arising out

of FIR No.124 of 2018, pending on the fle of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, stands quashed.

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms in both the

applications.

       [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]                  [S. S. SHINDE, J.]