Mandar Prakash Lonkar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12424 Bom

                                                                           18-apl-224-2021.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2021

Mandar Prakash Lonkar and Another                               ...Applicants
           vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others                             ...Respondents

Mr. Raj Bhavsar, for the Applicants.
Mr. Abdul Kader Millwala, for Respondent No. 3.
Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mrs. Devika Mandar Lonkar, respondent No. 3 present.

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

                                           DATE :      SEPTEMBER 02, 2021
                                             ---------------

JUDGMENT : (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent

of the counsels for the parties, heard fnalll.

2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (the Code) is preferred to quash and set aside C.C. No.

1673/PW/2017 pending on the fle of learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai arising out of the frst

information report No. 39 of 2017 registered with Mahim police

station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections

498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 1/6

18-apl-224-2021.doc

1860 (the Penal Code) at the instance of respondent No. 3 - frst

informant.

3. The marriage of the applicant No. 1 was solemnized with

respondent No. 3 on 20th December, 2015. In the wake of

matrimonial discord the respondent No. 3 lodged report leading to

registration of C.R. No. 39 of 2017 on 10 th Februarl, 2017 for the

offences punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506

read with 34 of the Penal Code against her husband; the applicant

No. 1, mother-in-law; the applicant No. 2 and father in law Mr.

Prakash Lonkar, who passed awal.

4. Mr. Raj Bhavsar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.

Abdul Kader, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 make a joint

statement that in the intervening period, the applicants and

respondent No. 3 have amicabll resolved the dispute. The

applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have decided to dissolve the

marriage bl mutual consent and thus the petition is preferred

before the Famill Court at Bandra. The respondent No. 3 has

tendered an affdavit giving no objection for quashing the

prosecution against the applicants.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                         2/6




                                                                            18-apl-224-2021.doc

5. The respondent No. 3 Mrs. Devika Mandar Lonkar appeared

before the Court. We have interacted with her. She has specifcalll

stated that she has decided to settle the dispute with the

applicants voluntarill and there is no coercion or duress. The

respondent No. 3 stated before the Court that in accordance with

the terms of settlement, the applicant No. 1 has deposited the sum

of Rs. 5 lakhs in the Famill Court. She has no objection to quash

the prosecution.

6. Paragraph Nos 4 to 6 of the affdavit read as under:

4] I further sal as ml self and applicant No. 1 both are not willing to continue our matrimonial relationship with each other, therefore, we fled consent terms dated 27/08/2019 for getting divorce bl mutual consent in Petition No. A2857 of 2017 pending before the 6 th Famill Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

5] I further sal that as per the terms and conditions of the said consent terms dated 27/08/2019 the applicant No. 1 had agreed to pal Rs. 5,00,000/- against permanent alimonl to me and the said amount has been deposited bl the applicant No. 1 before the Famill Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 07/12/2019.

6] I further sal that as per the terms of the said consent terms dated 27/08/2019 after the applicant No. 1 deposits the said amount we both approach the High Court for quashing of the said C.C. No. 1673/PW.2017 pending before the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. Therefore, I am making this affdavit on oath giving ml consent to allow the petition fled bl the application to quash the said C.C. No.1673/PW/2017 pending before the Addl, Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                     3/6




                                                                              18-apl-224-2021.doc

7. It seems that the parties have amicabll resolved all the

disputes. The applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 3 have also

agreed to dissolve the marital bond. In pursuance of the consent

terms, the applicant No. 1 has deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in

the Famill Court. The settlement between the parties appears to

be voluntarl.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the continuation of

prosecution would turn out to be a futile exercise. It is verl

unlikell that respondent No. 3 would support the prosecution and

it would end in conviction. On the contrarl, continuation of

prosecution would cause grave prejudice not onll to the applicants

but respondent No. 3 as well. It would also amount to abuse of the

process of the Court.

9. A proftable reference, in this context, can be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State

of Punjab1, wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court,

considered the relative scope of the provisions contained in Section

482 and Section 320 of the Code and exposited the power of the

High Court to quash the FIR or prosecution in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction, as under:

1    (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                       4/6




                                                                             18-apl-224-2021.doc

"61. ......... .... .........But the criminal cases having overwhelmingll and predominatingll civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularll the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonl relating to dowrl, etc. or the famill disputes where the wrong is basicalll private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this categorl of cases, High Court mal quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibilitl 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 bl 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 contrarl 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 the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." ` (emphasis supplied)

10. Since all the parameters which warrant the exercise of the

discretion to quash the prosecution are made out in this

application, we are persuaded to quash the proceeding in C.C. No.

1673/PW/2017 in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent

the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order.

                                           ORDER

a]       The application stands allowed.

b]       The proceeding in C.C.No.1673/PW/2017 pending on the fle

of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 5/6

18-apl-224-2021.doc

arising out of the frst information report No. 39 of 2017 stand

quashed and set aside.

c] The learned Judge, Famill Court, Bandra is requested to

decide the pending Marriage Petition, between the applicant No. 1

and respondent No. 3, expeditiousll.

d] The applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 3 shall render

necessarl cooperation in the expeditious disposal of the Marriage

Petition.

e] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

         (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                  (S.S. SHINDE, J.)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                            6/6