Bombay High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 March, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally signed
by Mandira
Mandira Salgaonkar
Salgaonkar Date:
2021.03.15
1/4 937 WP-6036-19 (OJ).doc
21:12:13 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6036 OF 2019
1. Krishna Kumar Singh ]
Residing at Navjeevan Society, Room ]
No.09, 3rd Floor, Above Shivam Hotel, ]
Kopari, Thane ]
] .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Kopri Police Station, Thane ]
]
2. Jagruti Pramod Singh ]
Residing at Room No.404, A Wing, ]
Vivekanand Arcade, Chakki Naka, ]
Kalyan (E) ] .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2020
1. Pramod Kumar Singh,
2. Vinod Kumar Singh,
3. Mrs.Phula Devi Singh,
Residing at Navjeevan Society,
Room No.9, 3rd Floor, Above Shivam
Hotel, Kopri, Thane (E).
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Kopri Police Station, Thane ]
]
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/4 937 WP-6036-19 (OJ).doc
2. Jagruti Pramod Singh ]
Residing at Room No.404, A Wing, ]
Vivekanand Arcade, Chakki Naka, ]
Kalyan (E) ]
...
Mr.Ashok Kumar Dubey i/b SAVJ Law Solutions for the Petitioners.
Mr.Nikhil Kasbekar for Respondent No.2.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Respondent No.2 is present in Court.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 12th MARCH, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT:- [PER S.S.SHINDE, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. Since the F.I.R. impugned in both the writ petitions is
common, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both the petitions by
this common judgment.
3. These petitions take exception to the F.I.R. No.I-86 of 2018
lodged with Kopari Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406, 354, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and second
respondent jointly submit that the petitioners and respondent No.2
have amicably settled the dispute. Learned counsel appearing for
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 937 WP-6036-19 (OJ).doc
respondent No.2 has tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent
No.2. Same is taken on record.
5. Respondent No.2 is present in the court. She has been
identified by her counsel. We have interacted with her. She has
stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into the settlement and
join the prayer made by the petitioners to quash the impugned FIR.
6. Learned APP appearing for respondent No.1/State submits
that though the charge-sheet was ready, same was not filed since it
was stated before this Court on the last date of hearing that the
parties have amicably settled the dispute.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab & Anr.1 has held that the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominately 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 has
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 937 WP-6036-19 (OJ).doc
also held that 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.
8. Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably
settled the dispute, chances of conviction of the petitioners would be
bleak and remote and further continuation of the investigation of the
aforesaid crime would be an exercise in futility, since respondent
No.2 is not going to support the said allegations.
9. In the light of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs and in
view of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and keeping in view
the statement made by respondent No.2 before this Court that she
does not wish to pursue the allegations made in the impugned FIR,
the petitions deserve to be allowed to secure the ends of justice and
to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court
10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (ii), which
reads as under.
"ii. The FIR Bearing I-86 of 2018 registered with the
Kopari Police Station for the alleged offence u/s. 498(A),
406, 354, 504 of IPC against the petitioners be quashed and
set-aside."
11. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
