Bombay High Court
Shanta W/O. Rajiv Nagare And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 July, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, S. G. Dige
964-CrWP-590-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2021
SHANTA W/O. RAJIV NAGARE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Prashant M. Nagargoje
APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S. J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. V. P. Kadam
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JULY, 2021
PER COURT :
1. Heard finally at admission stage by consent of the
parties.
2. This criminal writ petition is filed for quashing of the FIR
on the basis of settlement between the parties.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR respondent No.3
- complainant had availed Rs.10,000/- as a hand loan from
petitioner No.2 and in view of the said amount respondent No.3 has
issued a cheque of his account with Chikhali Phulmbri Branch dated
01-02-2021, as a bearer cheque, to petitioner No.2. However, it
was canceled and the informant - respondent No.3 has issued
another cheque of Rs.10,000/- of the above said bank on
1 of 5
964-CrWP-590-21.odt
03-02-2021. However, the earlier cheque was not returned. It
further appears from the allegations made in the FIR that the
petitioners had changed the figure on the said cheque from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- and further added name of petitioner
No.1 before the name of petitioner No.2 i.e. Raju Nagare.
Therefore, Crime No.72 of 2021 came to be registered against the
petitioners on 30-03-2021 for the offences made under Sections
420, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners and respondent No.3 have arrived at amicable
settlement and they have filed joint affidavit of compromise before
this Court. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 -
informant has also accepted the same.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 informant
submits that there is an oral contract between the petitioners and
respondent No.3 and there are no allegations about the forgery of
the Government record. The petitioners and respondent No.3 are
having cordial relations and they know each other since last 15
years. After registration of the FIR, relatives of the petitioners and
relatives of respondent No.3 including the Sarpanch of the village
had a meeting and decided to patch up the matter. There was
2 of 5
964-CrWP-590-21.odt
misunderstanding between the petitioners and respondent No.3
about the payments. It was also decided in the said meeting, dated
13-04-2021, that in future they will not lodge complaint against
each other and they would not enter into any hand loan and
financial transactions.
6. In a case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors Vs. State of Gujarat and another
reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4843, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph No.15 of the Judgment has laid down broad
principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject. The
Clause Nos. (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) are reproduced herein, which
are relevant for the present discussion:
"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following propositions :
(i) .............
(ii) .............
(iii) .............
(iv) .............
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have
settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with
a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and
3 of 5
964-CrWP-590-21.odt
serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious
impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such
cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases
which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of
the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) .............
(x) ............."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the decision
as to whether complaint or First Information Report should be
quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled
the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. Even the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
4 of 5
964-CrWP-590-21.odt
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
8. In the instant case we have satisfied that the parties
have arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. It is a dispute
between two persons and after intervention of the family members,
the petitioners and respondent No.3 have decided to settle the
matter finally. In view of the same and in terms of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case as
referred above, we allow this writ petition in terms of prayer clause
'A'.
9. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. However, both the parties have used the police
machinery to ultimately settle their dispute which is private in
nature, we, therefore, impose the cost on the parties. We direct
the petitioners and respondent No.3 to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) before this Court and the same shall
be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,
Aurangabad.
(S. G. DIGE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
SVH
5 of 5
