Abhishek Rajesh Godambe And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 12426 Bom

                                                                             51-wp-3118-2021.doc

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.3118 OF 2021

                   Abhishek Rajesh Godambe and Others                  ...Petitioners
                              vs.
                   The State of Maharashtra and Another                ...Respondents

                   Mr. Amey Deshpande, for the Petitioners.
VISHAL             Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.
SUBHASH            Mrs. Aarti Godambe, the Respondent No. 2 present.
PAREKAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAL                                          CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.09.04
                                                           N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

13:41:18 +0530

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 fnally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the

Code) is preferred to quash and set aside the frst information

report No. 49 of 2019 registered at Kasarwadavali police station,

Thane for the offences punishable under sections 406, 498A read

with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the instance of respondent

No. 2 - frst informant.

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

respondent No. 2 on 3rd June, 2017. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 1/7 51-wp-3118-2021.doc

the relatives of petitioner No. 1. The marriage was afficted with

discord. As the dispute escalated, the respondent No. 2 lodged

report against the petitioners at Kasarwadvali polie station for

allegedly subjecting her to cruelty in order to coerce her to meet an

unlawful demand of property and also for criminal breach of trust

leading to C.R. No. 49 of 2019, for the aforesaid offences.

4. Mr. Amey Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners

and Mrs. Aarti Godambe, the respondent No. 2 who is present in

person, make a joint statement that in the intervening period the

dispute between the petitioners and respondent NO. 2 has been

amicably resolved. The respondent No. 2 does not wish to

prosecute the petitioners any further. The respondent No. 2 has

thus fled an affdavit incorporating her consent to quash the

above numbered frst information report and the consequent

proceeding arising out of the said frst information report.

5. We have interacted with the petitioner No. 1 and respondent

No. 2, who are present in the Court. The respondent No. 2 is an

advocate by profession. She informed the Court that she has

decided to settle the dispute with the petitioners out of her own

volition and there is no coercion or duress. The petitioner No. 1

and respondent No. 2 have decided to settle all the matrimonial

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 2/7 51-wp-3118-2021.doc

disputes and a marriage petition, being M.P.No. 25 of 2019, is fled

before the learned Civil Judge, Maval, Pune wherein they have

decided to obtain divorce by mutual consent in accordance with

the consent terms executed before the Civil Court. A copy of which

is annexed to the petition (Exhibit B).

6. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 7 of the affdavit of respondent No. 2

read as under:

1] At the outset, I state and submit that I have received the copy of the Writ for quashing of F.I.R. fled by the petitioners herein and being aware of the facts and circumstances of the case, am fling my consent affdavit for quashing of the F.I.R as myself and the petitioner No. 1 have mutually decided to dissolve our marriage by fling mutual consent.

2] I say that, out of matrimonial dispute, the petitioner No. 1 have fled M.P. No. 25 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Civil Judge (S.D.), Maval, Pune.

3] I say that out of my matrimonial disputes, I have lodged C.R.No.49 of 2019 punishable under section 498(a), 406 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners with Kasarwadavli police station, Thane.

4] I further state that as the above said offence is registered out of matrimonial disputes, hence elder family members of both the petitioner No. 1 and myself have settled the disputes between me and the petitioners amicably. Accordingly, now the dispute between me and the petitioners are amicably settled out of Court. Therefore, on 6th August, 2021 myself and petitioner No. 1 have also fled consent terms before the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (S.D) Maval, Pune in M.P. No. 25 of 2019. A true copy of the said consent terms is annexed by the petitioner as Exh.B in the said Writ Petition.

5] I further state that, as agreed under the consent terms, I have already received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by demand draft from petitioner No. 1 at the time of fling the above said consent terms.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                 3/7
                                                                        51-wp-3118-2021.doc

6] I further submits that today also as agreed under the consent terms, I have already received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by demand draft from petitioner No. 1 at the time of fling the present affdavit before this Court.

7] I further state that as agreed under the said consent terms, I am now withdrawing all the allegations made against the petitioners in C.R.No. 49 of 2019 punishable under section 498(a), 406 read with 34 of IPC registered with Kasarwadavali police station. Hence, I am hereby expressing my free and willful consent before this Court that the petition fled by the petitioner be allowed and the C.R. No. 49 of 2019 punishable under section 498(a), 406 read with 34 of IPC registered with Kasarwadavali police station be quashed and set aside.

7. Evidently, the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.

1 and respondent No. 2 is the genesis of the alleged offences.

Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, both of whom are advocates

by profession, have amicably resolved the dispute. It seems that

they have decided to part ways and move on in life. Respondent

No. 2 further submitted that, in accordance with the terms of the

settlement, she has received a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. She is

agreeable to receive the balance amount of Rs. 80 lakhs on the

date the decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent is

passed by the Civil Court.

8. In the light of the comprehensive settlement between the

parties, it is very unlikely that respondent No. 2 would support the

prosecution case. And the chances of the prosecution ending in

conviction are extremely remote and bleak. Continuation of

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 4/7 51-wp-3118-2021.doc

prosecution, where the parties have arrived at settlement of the

entire dispute, would serve no fruitful purpose. On the contrary, it

would put the parties, including respondent No. 2, to grave

prejudice. It would thus 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:

"61. ......... .... .........But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a 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 the 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

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                  5/7
                                                                         51-wp-3118-2021.doc

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. Aforesaid pronouncement in the case of Gian Singh (supra)

applies with full force to the facts of the case at hand. The offence

arose out of matrimonial dispute and the entire dispute is

proposed to be settled by the parties. Thus, in order to secure the

ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court,

we are inclined to allow the petition.

11. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that though the parties have agreed that the balance amount of

Rs. 80 lakhs is to be paid to respondent No. 2 on the date of the

order to be passed in the Marriage Petition, yet, the petitioner No.

1 is ready to deposit the said amount before the Civil Court. Mr.

Deshpande, further submitted that the Marriage Petition is posted

for fnal orders before the Civil Court tomorrow.

12. We record the statement made on behalf of the petitioners. In

the event the fnal order is not passed in the said Marriage Petition

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 6/7 51-wp-3118-2021.doc

tomorrow, the petitioners shall deposit the balance amount in the

Civil Court.

Hence, the following order.

                                 ORDER

a]       The petition stands allowed.

b]       The F.I.R No. 49 of 2019 registered with Kasarwadavali police

station, Thane and all the consequent proceedings arising out of

the said F.I.R, stand quashed and set aside.

c] The learned Civil Judge is requested to expeditiously decide

the Marriage Petition No. 25 of 2019.

d] The petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 shall render

necessary cooperation to the learned Civil Judge in expeditiously

deciding the said Marriage Petition.

e] In the event the said Marriage Petition is not decided

tomorrow, the petitioner No. 1 shall deposit the balance amount of

Rs. 80 lakhs, in accordance with the consent terms, before the

Civil Court.

f]       Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.



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




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                     7/7