Sagar Kishor Naik And Ors vs Meghna Sagar Naik Alias Meghna ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13789 Bom

                                      1/7            CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2871 OF 2021
1. Mr. Sagar Kishor Naik,
Aged 45 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Unemployed,
Mobile No. : 7030026699,
Email : [email protected]

2. Mr. Kishor Vitthal Naik,
Aged 70 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Unemployed.

3. Mrs. Sheela Kishor Naik,
Aged 68 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Housewife,
All residing at Flat No. 4, Tungai Apartment,
1st Floor, Near Kamala Nehru Park,
Deccan Gymkhana, 781/4 Shivaji Nagar,
Pune-411 004.                                          .... Petitioners
         Versus
1. Mrs. Meghna Sagar Naik alias
Meghna Pankaj Kulkarni,
Aged : 35, Occupation : Housewife,
Indian Inhabitant
Residing at Room No. 102/B,
Om Chaidanand CHS Ltd., Old Ayare Road,
Ramnagar, Dombivali (E),
Thane-421201.
M: 9892558941.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Bombay.
3. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Dombivali Police Station,
Dombivali (East), Thane.                               .... Respondents
                                ****


Shraddha Talekar PS




       ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2021           ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2021 07:33:47 :::
                                              2/7                  CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc


Mr. Yogendra M. Kanchan a/w. Dhanshree Hublikal i/b YMK Legal
for petitioners.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for respondent/State.
Respondent No.1 present in Court and interacted.
                                       ****
                          CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                  N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

Date : 24th September 2021.

JUDGMENT : (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

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

of the learned counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

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

and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is

fled to quuash the Criminal Case No. RCC/653/2020, pending on

the fle of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3 rd Court,

Kalyan, arising out of FIR No.10/2020 registered with Dombivali

Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A,

323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the

Penal Code'), at the instance of respondent No.1-frst informant.

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

respondent No.1-frst informant on 20th June 2014. The petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Soon after

marriage, discord struck the marital life of petitioner No.1 and

Shraddha Talekar PS

3/7 CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc

respondent No.1. Eventually, respondent No.1 lodged report with

Dombivali Police alleging matrimonial cruelty, assault and

intimidation at the hands of the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the

intervening period, the petitioners and respondent No.1 have

amicably resolved the dispute. The respondent No.1 has no

objection to quuash the prosecution. The respondent No.1 has sworn

an affdavit. It was further submitted that petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.1 have decided to dissolve the marriage and the

proceeding has been fled before the Family Court for dissolution of

marriage by mutual consent.

5. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Court. We have

interacted with respondent No.1. She submitted that she has

voluntarily resolved the dispute with petitioner No.1. She has fled

the affdavit out of her own volition and there is no coercion or

duress. She admitted that in accordance with the terms of a

settlement, a demand draft is handed over to her in Court today.

The last installment is to be paid after the proceedings before the

Family Court are concluded.

Shraddha Talekar PS





                                          4/7                  CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc

6. Paragraph Nos. 12 to 20 of the affdavit of respondent No.1

read as under :

"12) I say that I have accepted one time alimony of Rs.39,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty nine lacs and ffty thousand only) as full and fnal settlement against my right to maintenance and forgo my future right to maintenance in respect of myself, by my free will after thoughtful consideration.

13) I say that Petitioner No.1 has agreed to give and I have agreed to receive one time alimony of Rs. 39,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty nine lacs and ffty thousand only) in three installments, as the proceedings/litigation between us is withdrawn and divorce by mutual consent is completed.

14) I say that the three installments are defned in the consent terms fled before 3rd Joint C.J.J.D and J.M.F.C. Kalyan in application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 registered at 02/2015.

15) I say that I have received 1st installment as per the consent terms fled before 3 rd Joint C.J.J.D and J.M.F.C. Kalyan in application fled by me under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 registered at 02/2015.

16) I say that I have agreed to accept Rs. 39,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty nine lacs and ffty thousand only) as one time alimony. The Demand Draft of the three installments will be drawn in the name of "Meghna Pankaj Kulkarni" .

17) I say that I hereby confrm that I have not fled any other proceedings or complaint before any court, tribunal, women's wing or any other forum established under the law time being in force, against the petitioners and their family members.

18) I say that the said F.I.R. No. 10/2020 was fled when I was in distress/depressed state of mind as alleged incident took place with miscommunication and misunderstanding conversation and events between the Petitioners and myself.

19) I say that I am aware that the Petitioners have fled a Petition for quuashing of Criminal Case No. R.C.C. 653/2020 pending with 3rd Joint C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. arising out of FIR No. 10/2020, registered with Dombivali police station for complaint fled by me.

Shraddha Talekar PS

5/7 CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc

20) I say and I and Petitioner No.1 have settled all issues pertaining to our dispute, and have acknowledged that the said dispute was result of miscommunication and misunderstanding. I say that I dot not wish to proceed with the Criminal Complaint fled by me against the Petitioners. I say that therefore I have no objection if the present Criminal Complaint is quuashed against the Petitioners."

7. The aforesaid material indicates that the offences have their

genesis in the matrimonial dispute. The parties have decided to

amicably resolve the dispute and have settled the terms of resolu-

tion of the dispute. Pursuant thereto, petitioner No.1 has paid in-

stallments of alimony. They have agreed to dissolve the marriage.

In view of the settlement of the dispute, no fruitful purpose will be

served in continuing the prosecution. In view of the settlement ar-

rived at between the parties, it is unlikely that the respondent No.1

would support the prosecution. In this backdrop, the continuation

of prosecution would cause prejudice to the parties. It would also

amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

8. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judg-

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

Punjab and another1 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as

under :

"61......... the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil favour stand on a different footing for the 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Shraddha Talekar PS

6/7 CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc

purposes of quuashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out of matrimony re- lating 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, the High Court may quuash 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 quuashing 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."

9. All parameters to exercise the discretion to quuash the

prosecution indicated above, are made out in the case at hand, as

prosecution arising out of a matrimonial dispute, can be

legitimately quuashed, when the parties have amicably resolved the

dispute. We are, thus, persuaded to hold that in order to secure

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

the prosecution in the instant case deserves to be quuashed.

10. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The petition stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (a).

(ii) We requuest the learned Judge, Family Court

Shraddha Talekar PS

7/7 CRI-WP-2871-2021-J.doc

to dispose of the matrimonial proceedings between

the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 as

expeditiously as possible and preferably on the

next scheduled date of hearing.

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

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




Shraddha Talekar PS