Bombay High Court
Bhagwan Ramnath Dhatrak And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2021
1. Bhagwan Ramnath Dhatrak
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, aged
about 39 years, Occupation -
Agricultural,
2. Shashikant Ramnath Dhatrak,
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, aged
about 52 years, Occupation -
Agricultural,
3. Ashok Ramnath Dhatrak,
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, aged
about 45 years, Occupation -
Agricultural,
4. Suman Ramnath Dhatrak,
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, aged
about 70 years, Occupation -
Agricultural,
5. Mrs. Kavita Bhagwan Dhatrak
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, aged
about 35 years, Occupation -
Agricultural, All residing at Umrale,
Taluka Dindori, District Nashik,
Maharashtra. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through The Ozhar Police Station)
2. Vinod Pundalik Shinde,
Indian Citizen and Inhabitant, residing
at Kanchan Apurva Building, Santoshi
Mata Nagar, Chinchkhed Road,
Pimpalgaon, Baswant, Taluka, Niphad,
District Nashik, Maharashtra ...Respondents
Mr. Shailendra Pendse, for the Petitioners.
Smt. A. S. Pai, PP for the State/Respondent no.1.
Mr. B. K. Barve, a/w Archana Lad, Sheetal Tanpure, Santosh
Wagh, i/b B. K. Barve, & Co., for Respondent no.2.
Mr. Vinod Shinde, Respondent no.2 present through V.C. &
interacted.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2021 20:15:02 :::
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATED: 29th JULY, 2021
(Through V.C.)
JUDGMENT:- PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Leave to amend. Necessary amendment be carried out
forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnally.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the
Code") is fled to quash and set aside the frst information report
("FIR") bearing CR No.76 of 2020 dated 9th August, 2020,
registered at the instance of respondent no.2 - Vinod Shinde, the
frst informant, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
("IPC") and Section 3(2)(5a), 3(1) (r) and (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
("the SC and ST Act").
4. Mr. Pendse, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Barve, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 - the frst
informant, make a joint statement that during the pendency of
this petition, the petitioner and respondent no.2 have amicably
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
resolved the dispute. Respondent no.2 has sworn an affdavit
giving no objection to quash and set aside the Special Case
No.74 of 2020, arising out of FIR No.76 of 2020.
5. Respondent no.2 Vinod Shinde appeared before the Court
through video conferencing. He is identifed by Mr. B. K. Barve,
the learned Counsel for respondent no.2. We have interacted
with respondent no.2. He submitted that he has decided to
settle the dispute with the petitioner on his own volition. There
is no coercion or duress. He has fled the affdavit voluntarily. A
copy of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between
the parties is annexed to the said affdavit. The paragraphs 4 to
8 of the said affdavit read as under:
"4. I respectfully submit that myself and the petitioner are
the merchants in Pimpalgaon onion and tomatoes market
and residing at the vicinity at Pimpalgaon, nashik, and
therefore to ease the tension and to maintain the cordial
relations, I have executed and signed the aforesaid settlement
dated 8th April, 2021 before Ashok B. Katkade, Notary at
Nashik and have agreed to settle the dispute with petitioners
amicably and to maintain cordial relations with each others
and accordingly compromise was recorded by way of
settlement dated 8th April, 2021.
5. I further say that pursuant to said settlement, I have
agreed to accord my consent to quash and set aside and/or
to compound the offences registered U/s.143, 147, 341, 323,
504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention)
of Atrocities Act, 1999 duly registered by Ozar Police Station,
Dist. Nashik, vide C.R. No.76 of 2020 at my instance.
6. I have agreed and execute this consent, stating that I
have decided not to proceed with my complaint vide C.R.
No.76 of 2020 and agreed to withdraw all allegations, cases
and/or litigations inclusive of complaints U/s. 138 of N.I. Act
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
arising out the subject matter of settlement and do not have
any objections, if the above Writ Petition No.1449 of 2021 is
allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A) of the above petition.
7. I further say that the petitioners abovenamed pursuant
to settlement to pay lumpsum settlement amount of
Rs.25,00,000/-, the petitioner abovenamed have made part
payment of Rs.16,00,000/- i.e. (1) vide Demand Draft
No.489965 dated 23/02/2021for Rs.10,00,000/- and (2)
Demand Draft No.489781 dated 28/06/2021 for
Rs.6,00,000/- both drawn on Union Bank of India, Dindori,
Dist-Nashik by leaving balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/-,
which will be paid by the petitioners to me being original
complainant in two installments i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- shall be
paid at the time of passing an order for quashing by this
Hon'ble Court and remaining balance amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- shall be paid upon withdrawal of criminal
complaints inclusive of the complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, for
which the petitioners have agreed to handover two cheques
each for Rs.4,50,000/- to me to fulfll their obligations under
the Settlement.
8. I am fling this Consent Affdavit being the respondent
no.2 in the above petition as well as First Informant in the
F.I.R. No.76 of 2020 to allow the above Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1449 of 2021 with the permission to compound the said
offences registered under the said F.I.R. and to avoid the
further futile prosecution, since the dispute have been
amicably settled and no purpose will be served by proceeding
with the said C.R.No.76 of 2020, which was registered for
non payment of Commercial transaction by the petitioners
abovenamed. The petitioners abovenamed and myself being
the merchants and the brokers in the onion and tomatoes
market at Pimpalgaon, Dist.-Nashik and only to ease the
relations and to continue the business relations, we have
amicably settled the dispute in respect of my payments and
which has been fnally settled for lumpsum settlement of
Rs.25,00,000/- out of which the part payment of
Rs.16,00,000/-as stated hereinabove is received by me in
furtherance to the settlement dated 08/04/2021 and agreed
to cancel the earlier cheques issued in the subject
transaction by issuing fresh two cheques for an aggregate
sum of Rs.9,00,000/- being the balance amount of
settlement towards my commercial transaction for my sale of
onion and tomatoes at Pimpalgaon market at Nashik."
6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions and
statements, we have perused the material on record. It seems
that the commercial dispute, arising out of the sale and delivery
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
of tomatoes, was the genesis of the occurrence, which took place
on 22nd June, 2020. Though, there are some assertions in the
FIR refecting upon the caste of respondent no.2, in the light of
the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statement
made in the affdavit of respondent no.2, we are of the view that,
a prima facie case for the offences punishable under SC and ST
Act is not made out. It seems that the entire commercial
dispute between the parties has been resolved as is evidenced by
the Memorandum of Understanding annexed to the affdavit of
respondent no.2 and the statement made by respondent no.2
before this Court today that he has received agreed amount
under the terms of settlement.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the likelihood of the
prosecution resulting in a conviction is very remote and bleak.
Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the
prosecution. On the contrary, the continuation of the
prosecution may cause serious prejudice to the petitioners and
respondent no.2, as well.
8. 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
12012 (10) SCC 303
23-CRIWP1449-2021.DOC
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, 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."
9. The aforesaid pronouncement applies with equal force to
the facts of the instant case. The dispute arose out of a
commercial transaction. It was in the nature of a private dispute
with predominantly civil favour. Thus, in order to secure the
ends of justice and prevent the abuse the process of the Court,
we are persuaded to allow the petition.
10. Hence the following order:
: ORDER :
The petition stands allowed in terms of prayer Clause (1).
Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]
