Bombay High Court
Khwaja Tahseen Hasin Ahmed And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
crwp549.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
968 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.549 OF 2021
KHWAJA TAHSEEN HASIN AHMED AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Kazi
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. K.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shaikh Mohammad Naseer A.
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 27th APRIL, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.
2. The petitioners-original accused are seeking quashing of F.I.R.
bearing No. 507 of 2019 registered with Bazar Police Station,
Bhusawal, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406,
323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and also consequential criminal
proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 37 of 2020 pending before the
J.M.F.C. Bhusawal on the ground that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2
submit that due to intervention of relatives, well wishers and friends,
petitioner No.1 Khwaja Tahseen Hasin Ahmed (husband of
respondent No.2) and respondent No.2 have mutually agreed to
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:52 :::
crwp549.21
-2-
dissolve their marriage. They have decided to reside separate
permanently. Thus, they have decided to withdraw the proceedings
pending against each other, including the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights filed by petitioner No.1 Khwaja Tahseen Hasin Ahmed
in the Family Court, Bandra bearing No. A-2235 of 2019. They have
also decided to take divorce i.e KHULA. Respondent No.2 has
received an amount of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees fifty one thousand) as
Meher. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
respondent No.2 has filed consent affidavit to that effect and they
have placed copies of Khulanama before the court.
4. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for the respondent State.
5. We have carefully gone through the contents of complaint,
consent affidavit and the contents of Khulanama. It appears that the
parties have settled their dispute amicably and voluntarily. Further
the amount has also been paid to respondent No.2 towards Meher.
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
referred the view taken by the five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4
CTC 769 and particularly quoted para 21 and referred the guidelines
framed by the five-Judge Bench for quashing of the proceedings on
the basis of settlement. Guideline under clause 21(a) which is
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:52 :::
crwp549.21
-3-
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."
7. Thus, the Supreme Court in para No.61 of the judgment in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) has
made the 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 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 fittingly
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
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:52 :::
crwp549.21
-4-
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
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. In view of the above and in terms of ratio laid down by the
Supreme court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass the
following order:-
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:52 :::
crwp549.21
-5-
ORDER
I. Criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "A"
and "B-1".
II. Criminal writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
