Durgesh Rajendra Patil And Anr vs Neha Rajpoot And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 8617 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                           901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2286 OF 2021

            Durgesh Rajendra Patil & Others                                     ... Petitioners
                              Vs.
            Neha Rajpoot & another                                          ... Respondents



            Mr.S.C. Singh for the Petitioners

            Ms.Shweta Singh for Respondent No.1

            Ms.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent - State

            Ms.Neha Rajpoot, Respondent No.1 - present through Video
            Conferencing.


                                                CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATED: JUNE 30, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRI S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. This Petition takes exception to filing of First Information

Report No.385 of 2017 for offences punishable under sections

498-A, 323, 504, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc

Code registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali and

the consequent Criminal Case No.2789/PW/2019 filed in the Court

of Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court at Borivali, Mumbai.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Respondent No.1 jointly submit that the parties have amicably

settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms have been

filed before the Family Court at Bandra. A copy of the consent

terms is placed on record in the compilation of this Writ Petition.

4. We have interacted with Respondent No.1 through video

conferencing. She stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into

amicable settlement with the petitioner and has joined the prayer

of the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report.

5. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit,

in paragraphs 1 and 2, it is stated as under:

"1) I say that I have received the copy of writ petition filed by the petitioners above named and gone through the averments and statements made therein.

2) I say that I have settled the matter with petitioners and now I have no grievance against petitioners. I further say that I have no objection if this Hon'ble court be pleased to quash the case bearing no.2789/PW/2019 pending before LD.M.M. 68TH Court Borivali Mumbai arising out of F.I.R.

901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc

No.385 of 2017 Registered by the Police of Kashturba Police Station against petitioners for offence punishable U/S 498- (sic), 323, 540 (sic), 406 R/W 34 of the I.P.C."

6. Respondent No.1 has also filed an additional affidavit. In

the said additional affidavit, it is stated in paragraphs 1 to 3 as

under:

"1. I say that Petition for mutual divorce file by me and petitioner No.1 along with consent terms before the Hon'ble Family Court Mumbai bearing petition No.F-304/2020 and the Hon'ble family Court was pleased to pass decree of divorce on 02/01/2021. Hereto annexed and Marked as Exhibit "Exh-A" is the Copy of decree passed by the Ld.Judge in petition No.F-304/2020 dated 02/02/2021.

2. I say that petitioner no.1 paid a sum of Rs.12,00000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh Only) for one time final settlement towards child support to me as a full and final amount as settlement. I say that I have received a sum of Rs.12,00000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) by way of D.D. bearing No.590267 (Revalidated) on 31/03/2021 from petitioners and now I have no claim and no grievance against petitioners. Hereto annexed and Marked "Exh-B" is the Copy of Demand Draft.

3. I say that I have no objection if this Hon'ble court be please to quash the case bearing no.2789/PW/2019 pending before LD.M.M. 68TH Court Borivali Mumbai arising out of F.I.R. No.385 of 2017 Registered by the Police of Kashturba Marg Police Station against petitioners for offence punishable U/S 498- (sic), 323, 540 (sic), 406 R/W 34 of the I.P.C."

901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc

7. The petitioner and Respondent No.1 have amicably settled

the dispute and to that effect, consent terms have been filed before

the Family Court and it is stated in the affidavit and also the

additional affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 that it is her voluntary

act to enter into such settlement and she has also received the

amount stated in the consent terms filed before the Family Court.

It is also stated that the marriage is already dissolved by a decree

of divorce passed by the Family Court at Bandra.

8. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, in our

considered opinion, further continuation of First Information Report

No.385 of 2017 for offences punishable under sections 498-A,

323, 504, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali and the

consequent Criminal Case No.2789/PW/2019 filed in the Court of

Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court at Borivali, Mumbai would be

an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of

the Court.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of

Punjab and Another1 has held that the criminal cases having

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc

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 offences 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. In that view of the matter, in order to secure the ends of

justice and to prevent further abuse of the process of the Court, we

901_WP.2286.2021-J.doc

are inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is

allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

11. Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

          (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                               (S.S. SHINDE, J.)