Bombay High Court
Farhan Israr Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.31
16:58:22 +0530 (18) jt.cri.apl-551.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2021
Faran Israr Khan ]
Age : 24 years, Occ : Service ]
Residing at Room No.1, ]
Manuel Chawl, 4th Golibar Road, ]
Santacruz East, Mumbai ]..... Applicant.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
(to be served through the office of ]
Learned Public Prosecutor, ]
High Court, Bombay) ]
]
2] Mrs. Mehjabin Aarif Shaikh ]
Age : 33 years, Occ : Estate Agent ]
Resident of Gatge No.8, 6/44, ]
MHADA Housing Board, Collector Compound]
Gayakwad Nagar, Malad West, ]
Mumbai ]..... Respondents.
Mr. Viral K Rathod for the Applicants.
Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Saima A Sothe for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present through video conferencing.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE : 29th JULY 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 The Applicant has filed this Application for the following
lgc 1 of 5
(18) jt.cri.apl-551.21.odt
substantial relief :-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
Chargesheet and Criminal Proceedings CC No.884/PW/
2021 pending on the file of 71th Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Bandra, Mumbai arising out of CR
No.119 of 2021 registered at the Vakola Police Station
for the offence punishable under section 354D. 500 and
509 of the Indian Penal Code on such terms and
condition as this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute.
4 The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court through Video
Conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2
identified the 2nd Respondent. When we interacted with the 2 nd Respondent,
she stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into amicable settlement. She has
no objection for quashing the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet.
5 In support of her aforesaid statements, the 2 nd Respondent has
filed her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 2 to 6, the 2 nd Respondent
has stated thus :-
"2 I say that after registration of FIR and after filing of the
present Application much water has flown under the
bridge and I have buried over my differences with the
Applicant and has voluntarily reached an amicable
lgc 2 of 5
(18) jt.cri.apl-551.21.odt
settlement out of Court with the Applicant.
3 I say that the contents of the FIR and charge sheet are
not been substantiated and in any case in view of this
affidavit and also out of the amicable settlement. I say
that the FIR and charge sheet is now devoid of any force
and I have no objection if the FIR, Charge sheet and
criminal proceedings bearing CC No.894/PW/2021 be
quashed against the Applicant.
4 I say that I have no objection if the FIR, Charge-sheet
and Criminal Proceedings bearing CC No.884/PW/2021
pending before 71st Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bandra Mumbai are quashed and set aside against the
Applicant.
5 I say that I have gone through the contents of the above
Criminal Application APL Stamp No.8067 of 2021
without going into the merits of the matter, I am giving
my consent for quashing of the FIR, Charge-sheet,
Criminal proceedings against the Applicant.
6 I say that I am filing the present Affidavit out of my free
will and consent and no one has coerced or pressurized
me to do the same."
6 It is true that the investigating officer has invoked Section 354D of
the Indian Penal Code, however, after perusing the allegations made in the FIR
read in its entirety and in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed
by the 2nd Respondent, we are of the opinion that the said offence under
Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed.
7 Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the 2 nd
Respondent has stated before this Court that it is her voluntary act to enter into
lgc 3 of 5
(18) jt.cri.apl-551.21.odt
the settlement without any coercion or duress, no fruitful purpose will be
served by continuing the further proceedings in Chargesheet and Criminal
Proceedings CC No.884/PW/2021 pending on the file of 71st Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Bandra, Mumbai arising out of CR No.119 of 2021
registered at the Vakola Police Station for the offences punishable under
section 354D, 500 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code
8 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 accord with the guideline engrafted in
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 4 of 5
(18) jt.cri.apl-551.21.odt
such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.
9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the 2nd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made in
the impugned FIR and continuation of further proceedings in the impugned
FIR lodged by the 2nd Respondent against the Applicant and in CC No.884/PW/
2021 would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court. Since the
Respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR, the chances
of conviction of the Applicant would be remote and bleak. In order to prevent
the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, it would
be appropriate to quash and set aside impugned FIR and Chargesheet and
Criminal Proceedings CC No.884/PW/2021 pending on the file of 71 st
Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bandra, Mumbai arising out of CR No.119 of
2021 registered at the Vakola Police Station for the offence punishable under
section 354D, 500 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
10 In that view of the matter, the Application deserves to be allowed and,
the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). Rule made absolute in the
aforesaid terms. The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 5 of 5
