Bombay High Court
Sujeet Ravindraprasad Gupta And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 September, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
1/5 23-WP-3328-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3328 OF 2021
Sujeet Ravindraprasad Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Mishra Rajendra Prasad for Petitioners.
Smt. A.S. Pai, PP for State.
Mr. Mohan Sharma for Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is present in the 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 with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and 2 nd
respondent jointly submit that the parties have amicably resolved
the dispute. Learned counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent has
tendered across the bar affdavit of respondent no. 2. The same is
taken on record.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 23-WP-3328-2021.doc
3. Respondent No. 2 had fled the Petition No. A-1770/2020
before the 6th Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, but in view of
amicable settlement the said petition has been withdrawn by the 2 nd
respondent.
4. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court. We have
interacted with her. She stated that it is her voluntary act, without
any coercion, to enter into the amicable settlement and give consent
for quashing the impugned FIR. She stated that the petition fled by
her before the Family Court has been withdrawn and she is residing
in the matrimonial home with Petitioner No. 1. She further stated
that she has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.
5. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affdavit fled by 2 nd respondent
read as under:
2.) I further state that I lodged the
complaint against the petitioners
with the help of respondent no. 1
i.e. Senior Police Inspector of police
Charkop Police station vide C.R.
924/2020, dated 10/12/2020
under section 498(A), 324, 323,
504, 506 (II), 406 r/w 34 of IPC. I
further state that I had also fled
the application under section 12 of
the protection of women from
domestic violence, 2005 against
the petitioners relief mentioned in
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 23-WP-3328-2021.doc
the main complaint.
3.) I further state that after fling
of aforesaid domestic violence
complaint when I decided not to
claim anything from the petitioners
herein respect of any legible claim
the said dispute is amicably settled
before the respectable members of
the society and I have agreed to
withdraw all the allegations made
against the petitioners.
4.) I further state that the matter
is amicably settled between me
and the petitioners, I have no
claim of whatsoever nature against
the petitioners. As I have decided
to settle the dispute amongst us
amicably by residing together as
husband and wife to lead happy
married life and for our daughter
well future, I do not want to
proceed with the said matter
registered by the respondent no. 1
i.e. Senior Inspector of Police
Charkop Police station, Mumbai, I
do not want to lead any evidence
before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, I have no objection if
the Criminal Writ Petition fled by
the Petitioners is allowed by this
Hon'ble Court as matter is
amicably settled between us.
6. In view of amicable settlement between the parties and
the statement made by 2nd respondent before this Court that she
has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, no fruitful purpose
would be served by continuing the further investigation in C.R. No.
924/2020 dated 10/12/2020, for the offences punishable under
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 23-WP-3328-2021.doc
Section 498(A), 324, 323, 504, 506 (II) read with 34 of IPC,
registered with Charkp Police Station, Mumbai.
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 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 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
resolved 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 23-WP-3328-2021.doc
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court.
8. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, in
order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a),
which reads as under:
a.) That this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to quash the FIR and
proceedings of the C.R. No.
924/2020. dated 10/12/2020,
registered under section 498(A),
324, 323, 504, 506 (II), 406 r/w 34
of IPC registered with Charkop
Police station, Mumbai.
9. Rule made absolute to above extent.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of.
( N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
