Bombay High Court
Sitabai W/O. Sudam Avhad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 November, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 criappln 2479.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
33 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2479 OF 2019
SITABAI W/O. SUDAM AVHAD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Jagtap Gitanjali R.
APP for Respondents: Mr. S J Salgare
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Shekade S E
(appointed)
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: November 29, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. The applicants/original accused are seeking
quashing of the FIR I-56 of 2019 registered with
Amalner Police Station, Beed District Beed for the
offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also seeking
quashing of the Criminal Proceedings vide RCC No 212
of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Ashti, on settlement.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and,
accordingly, the terms of the compromise are also
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 04:02:51 :::
2 criappln 2479.21.odt
worked out. Learned counsel submits that, in terms of
the compromise, parties have decided to settle their
dispute permanently and now they are ready and willing
to reside together. The compromise terms are annexed
to this application signed by all the parties.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/informant
submits that due to efforts made by the friends and
elders as well as respectable people of the society,
parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Respondent
no.2 has agreed to withdraw the complaint made
against the applicants. They have decided to settle their
disputes fnally and there is no ill will or the complaint
against each other in any manner. Learned counsel for
respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 is ready
to go with husband at her matrimonial house and
applicant no.3 Arjun Avhad is ready to take her to his
house for further cohabitation. Further they have
settled their dispute without any condition.
4. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent
State.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 04:02:51 :::
3 criappln 2479.21.odt
5. We have carefully gone through the compromise
terms. It appears that due to the efforts made by the
friends, elder persons of the family and respectable
people of the society, parties have arrived at amicable
settlement and in terms of the said settlement, they
have decided to reunite and live their life peacefully in
the company of each other. We are satisfed that the
parties have arrived at settlement, voluntarily.
6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court in para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of
the fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(2007) 4 CTC 769. A fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by
placing reliance on the various judgments of the
Supreme court, has framed the guidelines for quashing
of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement.
Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment
is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 04:02:51 :::
4 criappln 2479.21.odt
judgment in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant
for the present discussion reads as under :
"21. ..... (a) Cases arising from
matrimonial discord, even if other offences
are introduced for aggravation of the case."
The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the
judgment of Gian Singh (supra) has made following
observations :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. 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. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R
may be exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fttingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature
and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 04:02:51 :::
5 criappln 2479.21.odt
compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour
stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, fnancial, 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, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put 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. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and compromise between
the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in affrmative, the High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2021 04:02:51 :::
6 criappln 2479.21.odt
7. In view of the above discussion and in terms of the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra), we proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Criminal application is hereby allowed in terms
of prayer clause 'B' and 'BB'.
ii. Criminal application accordingly disposed off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
