Bombay High Court
Mahesh Yashwant Pedamkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 September, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally signed by
LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT
GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.09.25
15:34:51 +0530 (11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2021
Mahesh Yashwant Pedamkar ]
Age : 43 yrs, Occu : Service, ]
R/at - 229/2nd Floor, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Currey Road, Mumbai - 400 013 ]..... Applicant.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Senior Inspector, ]
Agripada Police Station ]
Mumbai ]
]
2] Smt. Rajkamal Chintamani Deshpande ]
Age : 34 years, Occ : Actress ]
Residing at : Dinath, C/1/1, L.J. Road, ]..... Respondents.
Mahim (W), Mumbai - 400 016 ] (No.2/Org.Complainant)
Mr. Sushil A Inamdar for the Applicant.
Mrs. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Divya Parab a/w Mr. S R Barbhai for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Jayesh Chavan, PSI - Agripada Police Station present.
Respondent No.2 present in Court.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE : 24th September 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 By this Criminal Application the Applicant takes exception to the
lgc 1 of 6
(11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
FIR No.528 of 2021 dated 10/06/2021 registered with Agripada Police Station,
District - Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the 2 nd
Respondent jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
4 The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court. She is identified
by her advocate. We have interacted with the 2 nd Respondent. She stated that
it is her voluntary act, without any coercion, to enter into such settlement and
file compromise deed before this Court. She stated that she has received the
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and she has no objection for quashing the impugned
FIR. The 2nd Respondent has filed her affidavit in support of such settlement.
5 It will be appropriate to reproduce Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the
affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent, which read thus :-
"2 I say that, I am the original complainant in C. R.
No.528/21 viz. F.I.R. No.528 of 2021 dated 10.06.2021
registered in the Agripada police station, Mumbai under
section 406, 420 of the IPC.
3 I say that, myself and the applicant have settled entire
dispute amicably and entered into deed of compromise
on the terms & conditions as specifically agreed therein,
which is annexed at Exhibit-C of above application.
lgc 2 of 6
(11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
4 I say that, as per above compromise deed, I have
received demand draft no."064330" dated 09.07.2021
drawn in Bank of Maharashtra, Delisle Road issued by
the present applicant in my favour an amounting to
Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only).
5 I say that, in view of above, I have no
grievance/objuection and having free and willful
consent that the F.I.R. No.528 of 2021 date 10.06.2021
registered in the Agripada police station, Mumbai under
section 406, 420 of the IPC be quashed and set aside by
consent of both the parties.
6 I say that, I undertake that I shall abide b6y the terms
and conditions of the above said compromise deed,
which is annexed at Exhibit-C of the above application. I
further undertake that I shall not adopt any legal
proceeding for recovery of said amount in future as
claimed by me in the complaint.
6 In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and
pursuant to which, compromise deed and affidavit of Respondent No.2 are
placed on record, and the 2nd Respondent stated before this Court that it is her
voluntary act to enter into such settlement and, she has given her consent for
quashing the impugned FIR out of her free will and without any coercion, no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of further investigation in
impugned FIR No.528 of 2021 dated 10.06.2021 registered with Agripada
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
7 The learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1/State, on
lgc 3 of 6
(11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
instructions of the officer, who is present in Court today, submits that there are
no antecedents against the Applicant.
8 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.
9 In view of the amicable settlement between the parties and
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
lgc 4 of 6
(11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
pursuant to it, the parties have filed the compromise deed, we are of the
opinion that in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of
the process of law/Court, this Criminal Application deserves to be allowed and
the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus :-
"(a) By an appropriate writ, orde4r or direction of this
Hon'ble Court, that the F.I.R. No.528 of 2021 dated
10.06.2021 registered with Agripada Police Station,
District - Mumbai, under Section 406 & 420 of IPC
(Exh. - "B" hereto) be quashed and set aside."
10 At this stage, we expressed to the learned counsel appearing for
the Applicant that whether the Applicant is ready to contribute for noble cause
so as to aid the Children Aid Society. In reply, the learned counsel for the
Applicant stated that the Applicant would deposit Rs.20,000/- within two
weeks from today.
11 Within a period of two weeks from today, the Applicant shall
deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- in the account of Children's Aid Society, Mumbai
details of which are as under:-
Name of Bank of Account : Children Aid Soc Donation
Bank Account No. :02370100005612
Bank Name : UCO Bank
Branch : Matunga Mumbai
IFS Code : UCBA0000237
On deposit of aforesaid costs by the Applicant in the aforesaid bank account,
lgc 5 of 6
(11) cri.apl-606.21.odt
the Children Aid Society, Mumbai shall immediately transfer the said amount
of costs for betterment of the children to the New and Additional Children's
Home, Mankhurd, Mumbai. Payment of aforesaid costs is a condition precedent
for allowing this Criminal Application and this order will take effect after
depositing the costs amount by the Applicant.
12 Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal
Application stands disposed of accordingly. List the Criminal Application under
caption "For Compliance" of deposit of costs on 11th October 2021.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 6 of 6
