Bombay High Court
Rameshwar Dhuma Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
cran18.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
936 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2021
RAMESHWAR DHUMA PAWAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bora Satyajit S.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. T.K. Rathod
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 27th APRIL, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties
have arrived at amicable settlement and respondent No.2 has also
filed consent affidavit to that effect. Learned counsel submits that,
meanwhile, charge-sheet has been submitted. In view of the same,
since the parties have arrived at amicable settlement, we dispense
with the filing of an application for carrying out the amendment and
we permit the applicants to carry out the amendment forthwith to
seek quashing of the proceeding.
2. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.
3. The applicants accused are seeking quashing of the F.I.R.
bearing crime No.376 of 2020 registered with Pundlik Nagar Police
Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections 498-
A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and also consequential criminal
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:32 :::
cran18.21
-2-
proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 2359 of 2021 pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on the ground that the parties
have settled their dispute amicably. Learned counsel has pointed out
that in the charge-sheet Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act are also added alongwith other offences.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 submit that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement with the intervention of the relatives and
common friends. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit
that applicant No.1 (husband of respondent No.2) and respondent
No.2 have filed a joint petition bearing No.F-204 of 2021 before the
Family Court Aurangabad for dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B (1) of Hindu
Marriage Act. Copy of the said petition is also placed before us
alongwith the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 at Exh "A" page 21.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that it is agreed
between the parties that the applicant No.1 Rameshwar (husband of
respondent No.2) shall pay an amount of Rs.16,25,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lacs Twenty Five thousand) to respondent No.2 as one time
future maintenance and at present entire amount has been deposited
before the Family Court in the pending petition. It is agreed between
the parties that respondent No.2 is ready and willing to withdraw the
said amount after the decree of divorce by mutual consent is passed
by the Family Court.
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:32 :::
cran18.21
-3-
5. We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the respondent
No.1-State.
6. We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint,
the consent affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and also the
contents of the joint petition filed by the applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Aurangabad in terms of
provisions of Section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. We are
satisfied that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement
voluntarily and the care has also been taken to grant certain amount
to respondent No.2 towards future maintenance.
7. 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 Vs. 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 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."
8. 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:-
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:32 :::
cran18.21
-4-
"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
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
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 08:07:32 :::
cran18.21
-5-
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."
9. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down by the
Supreme court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass the
following order :-
ORDER
I. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "c"
and "C-1".
II. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
