Bombay High Court
Rekha W/O. Harsukhlal Chauhan And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2021
ASHISH ASHOK NAIK AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
WITH
CRIMINAL WP NO.1088 OF 2021
REKHA W/O HARSUKHLAL CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sant Kishor C.
APP for Respondents: Mr. R V Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Bayas Anandsingh
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: April 06, 2022
...
PER COURT :-
1. Heard fnally with consent of parties at admission
stage.
2. The petitioners/original accused are seeking
quashing of the First Information Report bearing crime
No.255 of 2021 registered with Pundlik Nagar Police
Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under
sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of the
aaa/-
2 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
Indian Penal Code and under section 307 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on the ground that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the
writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2/informant in both the writ petitions
submit that, the parties have worked out the consent
terms and those terms are placed before the Court.
The petitioner no.2 - Jay Harsukhlal Chauhan (husband
of respondent no.2 - Prachi) in criminal writ petition
no.1088 of 2021 and respondent no.2-Prachi Jay
Chauhan have fled HMP No.F-308 of 2021 for a decree
of divorce on mutual consent in terms of the provisions
of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before
the Family Court, Aurangabad and the said petition is
pending. It is agreed between the parties that
petitioner no.2-husband Jay Chauhan has to pay an
amount of Rs.21.00 Lacs towards the permanent
alimony of the respondent no.2. Further, as agreed
between the parties, said amount has been deposited in
aaa/-
3 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
the account of one Mr. Sunil Vishram Chawda, who is
elderly and respected person from the community. It is
further agreed between the parties that petitioner no.2
Jay (husband of respondent no.2) will arrange to give
Demand Draft of the said amount in the name of
respondent no.2 Prachi before the Family Court,
Aurangabad. Parties thus agreed to withdraw all the
proceedings initiated against each other. Learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2/informant
submits that respondent no.2 Prachi is not willing to
prosecute the present complaint and she gives her
consent for quashing of the FIR No.255 of 2021
registered with Pundlik Nagar Police Station,
Aurangabad.
4. We have heard the learned APP for respondent/
State. We have made a specifc query with the learned
APP as to whether any medical certifcate is collected by
the investigating offcer since the charge under section
307 r/w 34 of the IPC is levelled. Learned APP, on
instructions submits that, as per the allegations made
aaa/-
4 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
by respondent no.2 in her supplementary statement, on
30.4.2021 she was forcibly administered sleeping pills
20-25 in numbers, however, she has immediately
vomited the contents. Learned APP, on instructions
from the investigating offcer, submits that respondent
no.2 Prachi was neither hospitalized for that purpose
nor the investigating offcer has collected any certifcate
because the same is not available.
5. It appears that due to intervention of the elderly
and respected members from their community, parties
have arrived at settlement and they have agreed to get
separated permanently. Petitioner no.2 Jay Chauhan in
Criminal Writ Petition no.1088 of 2021 and respondent
no.2 Prachi Chauhan have already approached the
family Court by fling a petition No.F-308/2021 for a
decree of divorce on mutual consent.
6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court in para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of
the fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
aaa/-
5 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(2007) 4 CTC 769. A fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by
placing reliance on the various judgments of the
Supreme court, has framed the guidelines for quashing
of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement.
Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment
is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the
judgment in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant
for the present discussion reads as under :-
"21.
(a) Cases arising from matrimonial
discord, even if other offences are
introduced for aggravation of the case."
The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the
judgment of Gian Singh (supra) has made following
observations :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power
of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude
aaa/-
6 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
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. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may
be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fttingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on 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
aaa/-
7 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and 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
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
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
7. In the instant case, considering the consent terms
placed before us, we are satisfed that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement, voluntarily. Further, the
care has also been taken to grant substantial amount to
the respondent no.2 Prachi for her future maintenance.
aaa/-
8 crwp 810.21+1088.21.odt
8. In view of the above discussion and in terms of the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra), we are inclined to quash the FIR.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Writ Petition No.810 of 2021 (Ashish
s/o Ashok Naik and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another) and Criminal Writ
Petition No.1088 of 2021 (Rekha w/o
Harsukhlal Chauhan and another Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and another) are hereby
allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A'.
ii. Criminal Writ Petitions are accordingly
disposed off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
