Vinay Kumar Jha And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 12311 Bom

            Digitally signed by
LAXMIKANT   LAXMIKANT
GOPAL       GOPAL CHANDAN
            Date: 2021.09.02
CHANDAN     10:38:43 +0530
                                                                   (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.621 OF 2021


            1]     Vinay Kumar Jha                               ]
                   Age about 38 years,                           ]
                   Occupation : Service                          ]
                   R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla                     ]
                   Appartment 04 Flower                          ]
                   Room No.402, Virar East,                      ]
                   Tal - Vasai, Dist - Palghar                   ]
                                                                 ]
            2]     Vijay Kumar Jha                               ]
                   Age about 35 years,                           ]
                   Occupation : Service                          ]
                   R/o. D/09, Jai Mateshweri Chawl               ]
                   Chandansar Road, Bhatpada                     ].... Applicants.
                   Virar, Thane                                  ] (Org. Accused)

                           versus

            1]     The State of Maharashtra                      ]
                   Through                                       ]
                   Senior Police Inspector,                      ]
                   Virar Police Station,                         ]
                   Dist. Palghar                                 ]
                   In F.I.R. No.0607/2020                        ]
                   dtd. 26-06-2020                               ]
                   (Notice to be served on the A.P.P.            ]
                   High Court, Mumbai)                           ]
                                                                 ]
            2]     Geeta Yogesh Rajput                           ]
                   Age about 42 years,                           ]
                   Occupation Housewife                          ]
                   R/o. Chandansar Mexivilla                     ]
                   Appartment 04 Flower                          ]..... Respondents

Room No.405, Virar East, ] (Respondent No.2 Tal - Vasai, Dist - Palghar ] is Org. Complainant

Mr. B A Lawate a/w Mr. S D Inamdar-Shinde for the Applicants. Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

Respondent No.2 present.

            lgc                                                                     1 of 6
                                                              (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt


                             CORAM :     S. S. SHINDE,
                                         N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

                             DATE    :   01st September 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)

1               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2 This Criminal Application is filed for the following substantial

relief :-

"(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. No.0607/2020, dtd. 26-06-2020 recorded at the instance of Virar Police Station for the offences u/sec. 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the

parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is submitted that the Applicant

and the 2nd Respondent are residing in the same building, and with the

intervention of the persons residing in the said building, the Applicant and the

2nd Respondent have decided to resolve and settle the dispute amicably.

4 The 2nd Respondent has filed her affidavit in support of the said

amicable settlement. In paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Affidavit, the 2 nd Respondent

stated thus :-

lgc                                                                         2 of 6
                                                          (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt

"2 I say that on 26-06-2020 there was a minor quarrel between me and the Applicants and it took place in a spur of moment. I say that due to the misunderstanding an FIR has been recorded.

3 I say that myself and the Applicants and the Respondent No.2 wants to put an end to the litigation and wants to resolve the present matter amicably.

4 I say that considering the above said all facts and circumstances, myself have no objection to compound and quash and set aside an F.I.R. No.0607/2020, dtd. 26- 06-2020 was recorded at the instance of Virar Police Station for the offences U/sec. 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

5 There is no force, coercion and undue influence on the part of the Respondent No.2 while executing the said affidavit dtd. 05.08.2021. The Respondent No.2 is fully aware of the legal consequences of executing and filing the present affidavit before this Hon'ble Court."

5 The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court. The 2nd

Respondent is identified by the learned counsel Mr. B. A. Lawate. We have

interacted with the 2nd Respondent. She stated that it is her voluntary act to

enter into the settlement and to give consent for quashing the impugned FIR.

She further stated that the FIR was registered out of misunderstanding.

6 Since the 2nd Respondent has decided to amicably settle and

resolve the dispute and not to proceed with the impugned FIR, no fruitful

purpose would be served in continuing the further investigation in the

impugned FIR No.0609 of 2020 dated 26-06-2020 registered with Virar Police

lgc 3 of 6 (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 324, 504, 506,

143, 147 and 149 against the Applicants.

7 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

lgc                                                                          4 of 6
                                                            (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt

8             As stated herein above, the parties are residing in the same

building and, it is informed that as the parties want to maintain the cordial

relations and harmony in future, they have decided to settle/resolve the

dispute amicably.

9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly

clear that the 2nd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made

against the Applicants in the impugned FIR, and further continuation of

investigation in the impugned FIR would tantamount to the abuse of the

process of the Law/Court. Since the first informant i.e. the 2 nd Respondent is

not going to support the allegations in the FIR, the chances of conviction of the

accused would be remote and bleak.

10 In view of above, and keeping in view the averments in the

affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent, the Criminal Application deserves to be

allowed, and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads

thus :-

"(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. No.0607/2020, dtd. 26-06-2020 recorded at the instance of Virar Police Station for the offences u/sec. 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

lgc                                                                         5 of 6
                                                    (20) cri.apl-621.21.odt

11          Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]                               [S. S. SHINDE , J]




lgc                                                                   6 of 6