Bombay High Court
Gunvantrao Raghunath Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.28 (14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
11:21:13 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2020
1] Gunvantrao Raghunath Patil ]
Age : 36 years, Occ : Unemployed, ]
R/o. Plot No.14, Vaibhav Laxmi Building ]
Galli No.3, New Laxmi Nagar, ]
Pimple Gurav, Sangvi, Pune ]
]
2] Smt. Shakuntala Raghunath Patil ]
Age : 69 years, Occ : Nil ]
]
3] Vasantrao Raghunath Patil ]
Age : 33 years, Occ : Service ]
]
Both R/o Nimgul, Tal. Shindkheda, ]
District Dhule ]
]
4] Mrs. Dhanvanti Chandrakant Shinde ]
Age : 39 years, Occ : Housewife ]
]
5] Chandrakant Jagatrao Shinde ]
Age : 46 years, Occ : School Teacher ]
]
Both R/o Chandravel Society, ]
Near Savarkar Statue, ]
Dhule ].Applicants/Accused
versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
(through the Sangvi Police Station, ]
Pune, CR No.05 of 2020) ]
]
2] Jagruti Gunvantrao Patil ]
R/o. c/o Shamkant Dajiba Sonawane ]
At & Post Hated (Br), Tal. Chopda, ]
District Jalgaon 425107 ]. Respondents.
lgc 1 of 6
(14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
Ms. Smita Gaidhani for the Applicants.
Mr. K V Saste, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Saili Dhuru for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present through Video Conferencing.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE : 27th JULY 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N. J. JAMADAR, J)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the
counsels for the parties, heard finally.
2 This Criminal Application is preferred to quash and set aside the
FIR being C.R. No.05 of 2020 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 506(2) r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 The marriage of the Applicant No.1 was solemnized with the
Respondent No.2 in the year 2011. The Applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the relatives
of the Applicant No.1.
4 The learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned counsel for
the Respondent No.2 make a joint statement that the dispute between the
parties has been amicably resolved and in accordance with the terms of
lgc 2 of 6
(14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
settlement, the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2
has also been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The consent terms have been
executed between the parties on 20th December 2012. A copy of the said
consent terms is annexed to the Criminal Application.
5 The Respondent No,.2 has also sown an affidavit. Paragraphs 4
and 6 to 9 of the affidavit read as under :-
"4 I say and submit that I know the applicants since 9 years
and impugned F.I.R No.05/2020 was registered due to
misunderstanding and miscommunication against the
applicants due to lack of my knowledge itself.
6 I say and submits that, as per consent agreement dated
20/12/2019 between Respondent No.2 and Applicant
No.1 regarding their dispute duly amicably settled and by
that said Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 decided
about the Divorce by mutual consent in view of Sec.
13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.
7 In reply to the contents of para no.04 to 10 grounds
raised in application I say and submit that, At this
juncture due to amicable settlement, Even in view of
HMP Application (Sec. 13B of Hindu Marriage Act)
dispute amongst us have now been settled and said
parties proceed for Divorce in terms of sec. 13B of Hindu
Marriage Act. By that the said allegation withdrawn by
the said Respondent No.2 or she has absolutely no any
objection to the said application of the applicants.
8 I further say and submit that, since I have no complaint
or any grievance as raised in the impugned F.I.R. I do not
wish to pursue with the complaint filed before the Sangvi
Police Station i.e. CR No.05/2020, continuing the
prosecution will be an abuse of process of law and also
directly hamper our future and would be stigma on the
life of the applicants as well as me.
lgc 3 of 6
(14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
9 That therefore, it is most humbly submit that F.I.R.
bearing no.05/2020 dated 07.01.2020 with the Sangvi
Police Station may kindly be quashed and set aside to
meet the end of the justice."
6 The Respondent No.2 - the First Informant appeared before this
Court through video conferencing. She states that she has decided to settle the
dispute with the Applicants on her own volition. There is no coercion or
duress. The consent terms are executed voluntarily and the affidavit is sworn
by her free will. She admits the contents of the affidavit.
7 In the light of the aforesaid submissions and statements, we have
perused the material on record. From the perusal of the FIR, it becomes
evident that the marital discord between the Applicant No.1 and the
Respondent No.2 is the genesis of the alleged offences. The parties have now
decided to bury the hatchet and resolve the dispute in its entirety. The
Respondent No.2 - the First Informant admits that in pursuance of the
settlement between the parties, the marriage has also been dissolved by decree
of divorce passed in the month of January 2021. It seems that the entire
dispute between the parties has been resolved.
8 In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, continuation of the
prosecution will not serve any fruitful purpose. In view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties, the likelihood of the prosecution ending in a
lgc 4 of 6
(14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
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 the Respondent No.2 as
well.
9 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 another 1
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
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
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."
10 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 5 of 6
(14) cri.apl-359.20.odt
abuse of the process of Court we are persuaded to quash the impugned FIR
being C.R. No.05 of 2020 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 506(2) r/w Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
11 Hence the Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads as under :-
(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records
and proceedings in respect of CR No.05 of 2020
registered with the Sangvi Police Station, Pune and after
careful perusal of the same, be pleased to quash and set
aside the complaint/FIR and all the investigation made
pursuant to the said FIR as against the Applicants."
Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 6 of 6
