Vishal Arvind Kachalia And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7329 Bom

                                                             APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc

BDP-SPS




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2021


          1] Mr. Vishal Arvind Kachalia                    )
          Age 41 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,          )
                                                           )
          2] Mr. Arvind Amichand Kachalia                  )
          Age: 74 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,         )
                                                           )
          3] Mrs. Meena Arvind Kachalia                    )
          Age: 68 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,         )
                                                           )
          4] Mrs Meghna Nilesh Parekh                      )
          Age: 42 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,         )
                                                           )
          All residing at 95/102, Shanti Park,             )
          Poonam Complex Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,            )
          Mira Road (East), Thane - 401 107                ) ..... Applicants.

                                 V/s

          1] The State of Maharashtra                      )
          (At the instance of Kandivali Police Station)    )
                                                           )
          2] Mrs. Binita @ Vinita Vishal Kachalia          )
          Age : 35 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,        )
          Occ: Housewife, residing at B/704,               )
          Veena Classic, Modi Park Iraniwadi No.3,         )
          Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400 067.              ) ....Respondents.
          ---
          Mr. Durgesh Jaiswal a/w Mr. Harshal Damania for the Applicants.
          Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State.
          Respondent No.2 present through video conferencing and interacted.
          ----



                                                                                          1/6



              ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:53:31 :::
                                                    APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc


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

Judgment reserved on 4/5/2021 Judgment pronounced on 6/5/2021

JUDGMENT: (Per Manish Pitale, J.)

1] Applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of an FIR registered at the

behest of Respondent No.2 (original informant) for an offence under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The

present application is filed for quashing of the FIR with the consent of

Respondent No.2. In fact, an affidavit of Respondent No.2 is filed

alongwith the present application wherein she has stated that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that she

does not wish to pursue criminal proceedings any longer.

2] The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants has invited our

attention to the affidavit dated 16/4/2021 of Respondent No.2

wherein she has shown her willingness to give consent for quashing of

the said FIR registered against the Applicants. Applicant No.1 is

husband of Respondent No.2, whereas Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are

APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc

her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. The

learned Counsel for the Applicants has also invited our attention to the

consent terms dated 11/3/2021 filed before the Sessions Court at

Dindoshi on the basis of which anticipatory bail was granted to the

Applicants by the said Court. The Applicants have submitted that they

shall abide by the aforesaid consent terms.

3] Respondent No.2 joined hearing of this Application through

video conferencing on 4/5/2021 and she stated that she had

voluntarily entered into settlement with the Applicants and that she

had filed the aforesaid affidavit before this Court on her own, without

any coercion while giving consent for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

She also submitted that she would abide by the aforementioned

consent terms.

4] We have perused the consent terms dated 11/3/2021 consisting

of 17 clauses, which include the undertaking given by Applicant No.1

that he shall bear educational expenses of the only son born out of the

wedlock. The amount towards such expenses has also been stated in

the said consent terms. Since a specific undertaking is given before

APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc

this Court by the Applicants and Respondent No.2 who has appeared

before this Court during the hearing, we expect the said parties to

strictly abide by the said consent terms.

5] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of

Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that, the

criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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

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 is further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no

APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc

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.

6] Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the

present case, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be served if

the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue any further. Hence,

we are inclined to allow the present Application.

7] Accordingly, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(B) which reads as under:-

"(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly quash

Criminal Complaint being C.R. No.115 of 2021

dated 25th February 2021 for offences

punishable u/s. 498(A) r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code 1860 with Kandivali Police Station

filed against the present Applicants at the

instance of the Respondent No.2."

APL-401-21CORRECTED.doc

8] The applicants and respondent no.2 shall strictly abide by the aforesaid consent terms. Accordingly, the present Application stands disposed of.

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