Vijay Gul Jessani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 8613 Bom

                                           17-CRIWP511-2021.DOC

                                                          Santosh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 511 OF 2021

Dr. Viaa Gul. Jessani                              ...Petitioner
                     Versus
State of Maharashtra & anr.                     ...Respondents


Mr. Omprakash Dubea, for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State/Respondent no.1.
Ms. Pratibha Patil, for Respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 is present through Video Conferencing and
     interacted.

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

PC:-

1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. And with the

consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnalla.


2.     This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 ("the Code") is preferred to quash the FIR No. 135

of 2020 lodged ba respondent no.2 - wife, with Santacruz

Police Station, Mumbai under Section 506(II), 323 and 504 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC") against the petitioner

- husband.



                              1/5
                                               17-CRIWP511-2021.DOC

3.    The indictment against the petitioner is that on 28th

March, 2020 at about 6.15 pm. while respondent no.2 was in

the kitchen, the petitioner assaulted and abused her and also

threatened her out of her life. Pursuant to the report lodged

ba respondent no.2, crime was registered at Santacruz Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506(II),

323 and 504 of the IPC.


4.    The petitioner asserts that, in the intervening period,

the   petitioner and    respondent     no.2    have   resolved      the

matrimonial dispute.      The petitioner and respondent no.2

have decided to apart waas.       Respondent no.2 has fled an

affdavit. Respondent no.2 is identifed ba Ms. Pratibha Patil,

the learned Advocate for respondent no.2.          In the affdavit

respondent no.2 has made the following statements:


       "3. I further state that after fling of aforesaid Divorce
       Petition when I decided not to claim anathing from the
       Petitioner herein in respect of ana legible claim the said
       dispute is amicabla settled before the Hon'ble Famila
       Court on dated 08.04.2021 and a Consent Terms was
       signed ba me and the Petitioner and in the said consent
       terms it is agreed between maself and the Petitioner
       that we have agreed for Divorce ba Mutual Consent and
       we have also agreed to withdraw all the allegations
       made against each other. Hereto annexed and marked
       as Exhibit-"A" is the copa of the Consent Terms fled
       before the Hon'ble Famila Court.

       4.  I further state that the matter is amicabla settled
       between me and the Petitioner, I have no claims of
       whatsoever nature against the Petitioner. As I have

                                2/5
                                             17-CRIWP511-2021.DOC

      decided to settle the dispute amongst us amicabla
      opting for Divorce mutualla; I do not want to proceed
      with the said matter registered ba the Respondent no.1
      i.e. Senior Inspector of Police Santacruz Police Station.
      I do not want to lead ana evidence before the Ld.
      Magistrate; I have no objection if the Criminal Writ
      Petition fled ba the Petitioner is allowed ba this Hob'ble
      Court as matter is settled amicabla between us."



5.   Respondent no.2 - Smt. Hansa Viaa Jessani appeared

before the Court through Video Conference.                We have

interacted with respondent no.2. She submitted that she has

decided to resolve the dispute with the petitioner voluntarila.

There is no coercion or duress. She further asserted that the

marriage is dissolved ba a decree of divorce on 21 st June,

2021. Thus, the parties have decided to put an end to all the

disputes and proceedings.


6.   It seems that the genesis of the occurrence in question

was the marital discord. The petitioner and respondent no.2

have since resolved the matrimonial dispute and moved in life.

In these circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution

will not serve ana fruitful purpose.       On the contrara, the

continuation of the prosecution maa amount to an abuse of

the process of the Court and would unnecessarila burden the

criminal justice sastem.




                               3/5
                                             17-CRIWP511-2021.DOC

7.   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 overwhelmingla
     and predominatingla civil favour stand on a different
     footing for the purposes of quashing, particularla the
     offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile,
     civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence
     arising out of matrimona relating to dowra, etc. or the
     famila disputes where the wrong is basicalla private or
     personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
     entire dispute. In this categora of cases, the High Court
     maa quash the criminal proceedings if in its view,
     because of the compromise between the offender and the
     victim, the possibilita 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 ba 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 statutora
     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
     ana court."



8.   The facts of the instant case squarela fall within the

propositions enunciated in the aforesaid case.          The Court

would thus be justifed in quashing the prosecution so as to

secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the

process of the Court.




1    2012 (10) SCC 303.
                               4/5
                                           17-CRIWP511-2021.DOC

9.     Hence the following order:


                             : ORDER :

(i) The petition stands allowed in terms of praaer Clause

(A), which reads as under;

(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the

F.I.R. and proceedings of F.I.R. No.135/2020 lodged

the Respondent no.2 with Sr. Inspector of Police,

Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai, u/s.506(II), 323, 504

of I.P.C.

(ii) Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

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