Sonal Rohit Markan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4753 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                             1/5                    APL-228-2021.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.03.16
           14:21:14
           +0530             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2021

          Sonal Rohit Markan
          Age:- 44 years, Indian Inhabitant
          Occupation: Doctor, residing at,
          RA. TI. B-501, Interface heights, behind
          Infinity Mall, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064.            ...APPLICANTS

                   Versus

          1.       The State of Maharashtra
                   At instance of Senior Police Inspector
                   Through Bangurnagar Police Station
                   Somwari Bazar, Bangur Nagar,
                   Malad (West), Mumbai 400104.

          2.     Nazir Ahmad Abdul Memon
                 Age about 61 years, Indian Inhabitant
                 7262, New Collector Compound,
                 Mavani Colony, Near Bus Depot Malwani,
                 Gate No. 8, Malad (West), Mumbai 400095.          ...RESPONDENTS
                                               ...
          Mr. Amrut Joshi i/by. Mr. Pratik Amin for the applicant.
          Mr. Nikhil Mishra for Respondent No. 2.
          Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State.
          Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court.
                                               ...

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

RESERVED ON: 12th MARCH 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON: 16th MARCH 2021.

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

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

          Bhagyawant Punde
                                             2/5                        APL-228-2021.doc

2. Learned counsel appearing for applicant and Respondent No. 2

jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The

Respondent No. 2 has filed the consent affidavit. Paragraphs 1 to 8 of the

said affidavit reads as under:-

of 2020 dated 14.08.2020 lodged in the Bangur nagar Police Station against Mrs. Sonal Rohit Markan (said 'Mrs. Markan') for negligent and rash driving and causing grievous hurt under section 279 and 338 of IPC.

2. I say that as on the date of affirmation of the present Affidavit, I have not been intimated by the concerned police station if the charge sheet has been filed in the matter.

3. I say that the Applicant herein and her husband Mr. Rohit Markan have agreed to pay Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Thousand only) towards medical expenses and compensation towards damages and have further extended their full moral emotional and physical support to me. I say that out of the said amount of Rs. 65,000/-, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid by the Applicant on 23rd February, 2021 which has been duly received by me. I say that the balance amount of Rs. 55,000/- will be paid by the Applicant on or before 5th March, 2021.

4. I say and submit that I have agreed to accept the same a full and final compensation towards the injuries caused during the accident.

Bhagyawant Punde 3/5 APL-228-2021.doc

5. I say that on the date of accident i.e. 14.08.2020, the Applicant has helped me in immediately calling for an ambulance and further assured me that she would cooperate for medical and such other expense.

6. I say that in view of the conduct of the Applicant and the settlement arrived at between myself and Applicant, I have no grievance against the Applicant. I further undertake not to agitate any issues touching upon the present subject-matter at any time in the future against the Applicant.

7. I say that in view of the aforesaid settlement, I do not wish to proceed with the criminal case and FIR No. 574 of 2020 registered with the Bangur nagar Police Station on 14.08.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal code, 1860, against the Applicant.

8. I hereby give my consent and pray that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay be pleased to quash the FIR No. 574 of 2020 registered with the Bangur nagar Police Station on 14.08.2020 which is pending against the Applicant.

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

it is his voluntary act to enter into the settlement and join the prayer of the

applicant for quashing the impugned FIR. Since the applicant and 2 nd

respondent has amicably settled the dispute, no fruitful purpose would be

served by continuing the investigation of FIR No. 574 of 2020 dated

Bhagyawant Punde 4/5 APL-228-2021.doc

14.08.2020 registered at Bangur nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the

offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. The further

continuation of aforesaid FIR would tantamount to the abuse of the process

of the Court/law.

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

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.

1    2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde
                                            5/5                         APL-228-2021.doc

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

application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed in

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

a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the First Information Report No. 574 of 2020 dated 14/08/2020 registered at Bangur nagar Police station, Mumbai in the interest of justice;

6. Rule made absolute to above extent. The application stands

disposed of.

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




Bhagyawant Punde