Vikas Vinayak Deodhar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4305 Bom

Vishwanath
S. Sherla                                          1/4                       18-WP-208-2019.doc


Digitally signed by
Vishwanath S. Sherla          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2021.03.10
09:45:56 +0530
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2019

           1.       Vikas Vinayak Deodhar
                    Indian, Adult, presently
                    residing at 2503, Shreeji Heights,
                    T.H. Kataria Marg,
                    Opp. Ganga Vihar Hotel, Matunga,
                    (West), Mumbai- 400 016.

           2.       Santosh Vikas Deodhar
                    Indian, Adult, also residing at
                    2503, Shreeji Heights,
                    T.H. Kataria Marg,
                    Opp. Ganga Vihar Hotel, Matunga,
                    (West), Mumbai- 400 016.                      ...PETITIONERS

                              Versus

           1.       The State of Maharashtra
                    Through Senior P.I. Dadar
                    Police Station, Mumbai 400028.

           2.       Ajay Shankar Kadam
                    7/322 Shiv Kiran CHS, Shivaji Nagar,
                    Worli, Dr.A.B. Road, Mumbai- 400 030.         ...RESPONDENTS
                                                  ...

           Ms. Shaba N. Khan i/b. Govilkar & Associates LLP for Petitioners.
           Mr. Rajesh Devgharkar for Respondent No. 2.
           Mr. Deepak Thakre, PP a/w. Mrs. M H Mhatre, APP for State.
           Respondent No. 2 is present.
                                               ...

                                          CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                   MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                                          DATE :         9th MARCH, 2021.




           Bhagyawant Punde
                                           2/4                        18-WP-208-2019.doc




ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

.                  Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Respondent

No. 2 jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has tendered across the

bar, affidavit of Respondent No.2, the same is taken on record. Paragraphs 1

to 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:-

1) I say that it is true that the Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 & 2 have settled all their disputes by Signing Consent Terms dated 9 th March, 2021, on the terms & conditions as more particularly set out in the said Consent Terms dated 9th March, 2021.

2) I hereby give my Consent for quashing of FIR No. 291 of 2018 u/s. 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code lodged by me in Dadar Police Station, Mumbai. I further say that I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court quashes the said FIR.

3) I am executing this affidavit to place the above facts on record and to enable Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 to seek and order of quashing of FIR No. 291 of 2018 from this Hon'ble Court.

Bhagyawant Punde 3/4 18-WP-208-2019.doc

3. Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. He stated that it

is his voluntary act to enter into the settlement and give consent for

quashing the impugned FIR. Demand draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- is received by

the advocate for the 2nd respondent and in turn he has handed over the said

demand draft to Respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court. The

Respondent No. 2 has stated that his grievance is satisfied and he has no

objection for quashing the impugned FIR. Since the parties have amicably

settled the dispute and 2nd respondent has joined the prayer of the

petitioners for quashing impugned FIR, the further continuation of

proceedings arising out of FIR No. 291 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 registered

with Dadar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420

read with 34 of IPC, would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the

concerned Court.

4. 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 resolves

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde 4/4 18-WP-208-2019.doc

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.

5. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to secure the

ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the law/court, the

petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as under:-

b) after going through the same, the said CR/FIR 291 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 with the Dadar Police Station be quashed and set aside.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of.

      ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                   (S. S. SHINDE, J.)


Bhagyawant Punde