Shlok Pankaj Chaturvedi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8611 Bom

                                       12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

                                                         Santosh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2021

Shlok Pankaj Chaturvedi                           ...Applicant
                    Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors.                ...Respondents


Mr. Kushal Mor, for the Applicant.
Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent no.1
Mr. Marmik Shah, for Respondent nos.2 and 3.
Respondent nos.2 and 3 are present through Video
     Conferencing and interacted.


                        CORAM:      S. S. SHINDE &
                                    N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
                        DATED:      30th JUNE, 2021
                                    (Through V.C.)

PC:-

1.     This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is fled to quash and set aside the

prosecution, bearing CC No.2739/PS/2016 pending on the fle

of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri,

arising out of FIR No.100 of 2016 registered with Versova Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and

338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 134(a)

and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of the

settlement arrived at between the applicant - accused and

respondent no.2 - frst informant and respondent no.3 - the

                              1/6
                                           12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

victim.


2.   The indictment against the applicant is that on 13 th

March, 2016 at about 7.00 am. while respondent nos.2 and 3

were on their routine morning walk, the applicant, who was at

the wheel of car Honda Accord bearing registration No.MH 02/

BY 4681, came from behind and gave a violent dash to

respondent no.3. The applicant drove the car in a rash and

negligent manner and fed away from the spot of accident

without providing medical assistance to the victim and

intimation to the police. Hence, respondent no.2 lodged report

with the police for the offences punishable under Sections 279

and 338 of the IPC and Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.   Post completion of investigation, report

under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the

Code") is lodged against the applicant.


3.   In the application, the applicant avers that after the

impact, the applicant and his father approached the police on

their own.   The father of the applicant has incurred all the

expenses for medical treatment of respondent no.3.           The

applicant and respondent nos.2 and 3 have thus decided to

settle the matter and the applicant's father, at the desire of

respondent nos.2 and 3, has agreed to donate a sum of

                              2/6
                                          12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of 'Sant Shri Lalgebi Gaushala' and a

demand draft has already been delivered.


4.   Respondent no.3 has sworn an affdavit. Respondent

no.3 is identifed by Mr. Shah, Advocate for respondent nos.2

and 3.   In the affdavit respondent no.3 has made following

statements.


      "1. I state that, my husband, the respondent no.2 had
      fled a complaint against the applicant with the Versova
      Police Station based on which an FIR bearing CR No.100
      of 2016 came to be fled against the applicant above-
      named, under Section 279 and 338 of the IPC and
      Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
      by the Versova Police Station. I state that I was admitted
      at Kokilaben Ambani Hospital following the alleged
      accident. I state that the Applicant's father had paid all
      the medical bills for my treatment while I was admitted
      at Kokilaben Ambani Hospital after the accident.

      3.   I state that during the pendency of the said case
      before the Magistrate Court, I have agreed to to
      mutually settle the dispute amongst ourselves. I say
      that the applicant has further agreed to hand over a
      demand draft/cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
      lakhs only) to the respondent no.2, in favour of "Sant
      Shree      Lalgebi    Gaushala"       bearing Account
      No.70390100011134, IFSC: BARBODBMANW, Bank of
      Baroda, Maninagar Branch, Gujarat through Beyond
      Imagination Franchise Pvt. Ltd, a private limited
      company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
      in which the Applicant is a Director.

      4.   I say that in light of the fact that the dispute is
      now settled by me with the applicant, I have No
      Objection in the CR No.100 of 2016 of the Versova Police
      Station against the applicant is quashed and set aside."



5.   Respondent no.3 - Kanta Manji Verat, the victim, and


                               3/6
                                         12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

respondent no.2 - Manji Kanji Verat, the frst informant,

appeared before the Court through Video Conference. We have

interacted with both of them.


6.    Respondent no.3 - victim asserted that she has decided

to settle the matter on her volition and there is no coercion or

duress.   Since the father of the applicant had incurred the

expenses of her treatment and has also made a donation of

Rs.2,00,000/-, to the trust, at her desire, respondent no.3

does not want to prosecute the petition any more. The frst

informant also reiterated his desire not to prosecute the

petitioner.


7.    From the perusal of the report under Section 173 of the

Code it seems that the impact occurred in an unguarded

moment.       The parties have resolved to bury the hatchet.   It

seems that the applicant and his father have made a bona fde

effort to compensate respondent no.3 for the injuries suffered

in the accident and the treatment incurred for the same. In

this view of the matter, with the settlement of the dispute,

there is a very bleak possibility of the prosecution ending in a

conviction. The continuation of the prosecution, on the other

hand, would cause serious prejudice to the parties, especially,

the applicant, who is a young boy, and reportedly admitted to

                                4/6
                                           12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

pursue a course in a prestigious foreign institution.               The

continuation of the prosecution, in the circumstances of the

case, may amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Thus,

in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of

the process of the Court, we are persuaded to quash the

prosecution.


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

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."



1    2012 (10) SCC 303
                                5/6
                                          12-CRIAPPLN384-2021.DOC

9.    The aforesaid pronouncement, in our view, governs to

the facts of the instant case with equal force.


10.   Hence the following order:


                             : ORDER :

The application stands allowed in terms of prayer Clause

(a), which reads as under;

(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash FIR

bearing CR No.100 of 2016 registered with the Versova

Police under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and the consequent charge sheet vide

CC No.2739/PS/2016 pending on the fle of 44 th

Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Andheri, against the

Applicant herein on such terms and conditions as this

Hon'ble Court may deem ft and proper.

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