Vasant S/O. Shrirangrao Kendre ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4483 Bom

                                                          criwp1646.19.odt
                                  -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1646 OF 2019

Vasant s/o Shrirangrao Kendre & others                       Petitioners

       Versus

The State of Maharashtra & another                           Respondents

Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for respondent No. 1.
Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                 WITH
                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2203 OF 2019

Vijay s/o Bhu angrao Lad & others                            Applicants

       Versus

The State of Maharashtra & another                           Respondents

Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for respondent No. 1.
Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                 WITH
                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3285 OF 2019

Bhu angrao s/o Ghanshyam Lad                                 Applicant

       Versus

The State of Maharashtra & another                           Respondents

Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. A.S. Shinde, APP for respondent No. 1.
Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale, Advocate for respondent No. 2.




 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2021 00:13:12 :::
                                                                criwp1646.19.odt
                                         -2-

                                 CORAM : V.K. Jadhav &
                                         M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 8th March, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON :11th March, 2021.

PER COURT : ( Per M.G. Sewlikar, J.)

1. All these three proceedings are being disposed of by

common order for the reason that they are between the same parties.

2. Criminal Writ Petition no. 1646/2019 is fled for quashing

C.R. No. 240/2019 registered with Ahmedpur Police Station, Tq.

Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Sections

324, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, upon

the First Information Report lodged by respondent No. 2 against

petitioners No. 1 to 4. The son of respondent No. 2 is the husband of

petitioner No. 3.

3. Criminal Application No. 2203/2019 is fled by the

applicants for quashing First Information Report no. 137/2019 dated

29.04.2019 registered with Ahmedpur Police Station, Dist. Latur for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 468, 406, 323,

504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During pendency

of this application, charge-sheet came to be fled and the applicants

criwp1646.19.odt

amended the application and sought relief of quashing of the charge-

sheet. Respondent No. 2 herein (the informant) is the petitioner No. 3

in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1646/2019.

4. Criminal Application no. 3285/2019 is fled for quashing

of the First Information Report No. 0239/2019 registered with

Ahmedpur Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 354, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,

upon report of respondent No. 2 against her father-in-law. Applicant

herein, who is respondent No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition No.

1646/2019, is the father-in-law of respondent No. 2. The only

allegation made against the applicant is that the informant was

throttled.

5. Since the parties to the proceedings are related to each

other, the matter was referred for mediation. In the mediation, the

parties agreed to bury the hatchet. They have arrived at amicable

settlement. Accordingly, they fled compromise terms. In the

compromise terms it is stated that these matters were referred for

mediation considering the fact that the proceedings for quashing of

First Information Report are fled on account of matrimonial disputes

criwp1646.19.odt

between the parties. The terms and conditions of compromise are

incorporated in the compromise pursis. The compromise pursis has

been signed by all the parties and they have fled affdavit to that

effect.

6. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors Vs. State of Gu arat and another

reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4843, the Supreme Court in

paragraph no.15 of the Judgment has laid down broad principles

which emerge from the precedents on the sub ect and summarized in

the following propositions :-

"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the sub ect, 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 ustice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the urisdiction 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 offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of urisdiction 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

criwp1646.19.odt

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 urisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of ustice would ustify 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 ustice 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;

criwp1646.19.odt

(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, fnancial, 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 pre udice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the fnancial and economic well- being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be ustifed in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a fnancial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the fnancial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

7. In 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 offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves

ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no

criwp1646.19.odt

exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. In clause no.

(ix) 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 pre udice. The Supreme Court in clause no.(x) has carved out

an exception to the principles set out in the preposition (viii) and (ix)

above pertaining to the economic offence and economic well being of

the State. However, present case does not fall in the said category.

8. In the instant case, considering the First Information

Reports, it is clear that they came to be lodged against each other on

account of matrimonial disputes. Now the parties have settled the

disputes. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any of the

parties have criminal antecedents. Having regard to the nature of

alleged offences and the circumstance that all the parties have

dissolved their differences, the possibility of conviction is remote. In

view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), we deem it ft to allow Criminal Writ

Petition No. 1646/2019 and Criminal Applications No.2234/2019 and

3285/2019.

criwp1646.19.odt

9. In view of above, following order is passed:-

ORDER

i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 1646/2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.

ii) Criminal Application No. 2203/2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C'.

iii) Criminal Application No. 3285/2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR )                                      ( V. K. JADHAV )
        Judge                                                 Judge

dyb