Jitendra S/O Ramesh Patole vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15314 Bom

                                       {1}
                                                                  crappln2176.20.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2176 OF 2020

 Jitendra s/o Ramesh Patole                                  Applicant

          Versus

 01 The State of Maharashtra
 02 Ragini w/o Ajay Sharma                                   Respondents


 Mr. N. B.Narwade, advocate for the applicant.
 Mr. S. P. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
 Mr. S. R. Zambre, advocate for Respondent No.2.


                               CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
                                       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

                               DATE     : 26th October, 2021.

 PC :

 1                Heard fnally at the admission stage itself, by consent

of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2 The applicant is seeking quashing of the FIR bearing

Crime No.0476/2019, registered with MIDC Police Station,

Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376

(2) (N) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, so also, seeking quashing

of the proceedings bearing Sessions Case No.405/2019, pending

before the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, arising out of the said

{2} crappln2176.20.odt

FIR.

3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the

applicant and Respondent No.2-informant have arrived at amicable

settlement. The learned Counsel for the applicant, from the

allegations made in the complaint, pointed out that there are

consensual relations between the applicant and respondent no.2-

informant since December 2016 and the said relations remained

continued for about two years. Even in the year 2018 i.e. on

17.10.2018, Respondent No.2-informant performed marriage with

one Gautam Munot resident of Burudgaon road, Ahmednagar.

4. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the ratio

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

Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10

SCC 303), though the offences against human body other than

murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course

of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may

not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity

or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in

the prohibited category. However, in the instant case, there are no

clear-cut allegations of rape as such.

{3} crappln2176.20.odt

5 The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that

the applicant and Respondent No.2 have fled joint affdavit. The

applicant and Respondent No.2-informant have settled their

dispute amicably and presently there are cordial relations between

them. There was consensual relationship between them and

Respondent No.2-complainant has no objection if the proceedings

of Sessions Case are quashed and set aside.

6 The learned A.P.P. submits that in terms of clause (e)

of para 48 of the judgment in Gian Singh (supra), the offence of

rape falls in the prohibited category and as such, quashing of the

proceedings is not permissible.

7 We have carefully gone through the allegations made in

the complaint, so also the charge sheet. Respondent No.2-

informant was 27 years of age at the time of fling of the complaint.

She got married way-back in the year 2008 with one Ajay Suresh

Sharma. The present applicant was the friend of her husband Ajay

Sharma. In the year 2016, said Ajay Sharma died due to ailment.

Respondent No.2-informant has one son and two daughters out of

her wedlock with said Ajay Suresh Sharma. It has been further

{4} crappln2176.20.odt

alleged in the complaint that in the month of December, 2016,

present applicant took Respondent No.2-informant with him under

the pretext of arranging certain employment for her and performed

intercourse with her. It further appears from the allegations made

in the complaint that thereafter the consensual sexual relations

between them continued till the year 2018. There are certain

allegations that on each and every occasion, the applicant has

given threats to Respondent No.2-informant during the said period

of two years and accordingly she had agreed for sexual relations

with him. In the backdrop of these allegations, even on 17.10.2018,

Respondent No.2-informant has performed marriage with one

Gaurao, resident of Burudgaon road, Ahmednagar. However, said

Gaurav has also abandoned the Respondent No.2. Thereafter

there are no allegations against the applicant about the

commission of rape in any manner.

8 We have carefully perused the contents of the joint

affdavit. It appears that the applicant and Respondent No.2 have

agreed to settle their dispute amicably and at present they have

maintained cordial relations amongst themselves. It is also stated

in the joint affdavit that there was consensual relationship

between applicant and Respondent No.2-informant. It is an

{5} crappln2176.20.odt

admitted fact that Respondent No.2-informant has three children

out of her frst marriage.

9 In the case of Gian Singh (supra), in para 45, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the view taken by the

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwinder Sing and

others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2007) 4 CTC 769, wherein

the Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed certain guidelines

for quashing of the criminal proceedings on settlement. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred those guidelines and clause

(e) is relevant for the present discussion, which is reproduced

herein.

{e} The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by public servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-

{6} crappln2176.20.odt

compoundable."

10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the

settlement or compromise must satisfy conscience of the Court.

The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the

undue pressure, the Court must examine cases of weaker and

vulnerable victims with necessary caution. It is also concluded by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that it can safely be said that there

can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed

to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. The only principle that can be laid down

is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e.,

"to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure ends of

justice".

11 We are satisfed that the settlement arrived at between

the parties is just and fair and free from any pressure. Respondent

No.2-informant is having 3 children out of her frst marriage and

thus considering the future of the said three children of

Respondent No.2-informant, it would be just and proper if the

settlement is accepted for quashing the proceedings. We do not

fnd that the applicant has taken undue advantage of the situation

{7} crappln2176.20.odt

and pressurized Respondent No.2-informant to arrive at the

settlement.

12 In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra),

we allow the Criminal Application in terms of prayer clause "B".

13 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                         (V.K.JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                        JUDGE

 adb