Bombay High Court
Laxman Hanumant Survase And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 March, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, M. G. Sewlikar
{1} CRI.APPLN.2494 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
50 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2494 OF 2020
LAXMAN HANUMANT SURVASE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicants : Shri Amol B. Chalak
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Shri A.V.Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri R.A.Jaiswal h/f.
Shri Amol T. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV &
M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE: 8th March, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. Heard fnally with consent of the parties at the admission
stage.
2. This application pertains to quashing of FIR No.164 of 2019
and the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.2172 of 2019 pending
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad,
against the applicants for the ofence punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that during
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:39:52 :::
{2} CRI.APPLN.2494 OF 2020
the pendency of this criminal application, the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement due to intervention of the elderly
persons.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a
document containing terms and conditions of compromise is
already submitted in the Petition bearing No.225 of 2019 fled
before the Family Court, Aurangabad. The learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that applicant No.1 and respondent
No.2 fled petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by
mutual consent in the Family Court vide petition bearing No.225
of 2019. Respondent No.2 has submitted afdavit to that efect
and the same is taken on record.
5. In a case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors Vs. State of Gujarat and another
reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4843 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph no.15 of the Judgment has laid down broad
principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject and
summarized in the following propositions :-
"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may
be summarised in the following propositions :
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First
Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:39:52 :::
{3} CRI.APPLN.2494 OF 2020
has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as
the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court
must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude
it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should
be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea
that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have
settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature
but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which
have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand
on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view
of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:39:52 :::
{4} CRI.APPLN.2494 OF 2020
being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in
declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance."
6. In terms of clause no.(ii) of the said proposition, the
invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First
Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the ofender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an ofence. While compounding an
ofence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power
to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the ofence is
non-compoundable. In terms of clause no.(v) the proposition is
summarized that the decision as to whether a complaint or FIR
should be quashed on the ground that the ofender and victim
have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated. In terms of clause no.(ix) of the
said propositions, the Supreme Court has also considered that in
such a case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in
view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility
of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:39:52 :::
{5} CRI.APPLN.2494 OF 2020
7. In the instant case, since the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement and in terms of the said settlement
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have decided to get
separated in view of the petition submitted before the Family
Court for divorce by mutual consent and if the same has been
done after the intervention of elderly persons from both the
families, we are inclined to allow this criminal application.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
I) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause-'B'.
II) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) ( V.K.JADHAV )
JUDGE JUDGE
SPT
