Bombay High Court
Sunita W/O. Late. Vijay Kokulwar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
cran3735.19-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3735 OF 2019
SUNITA W/O. LATE VIJAY KOKULWAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
AND
934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1517 OF 2022
ROSHAN S/O VIJAY KOKULWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Vasmatkar Amol G.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 27th APRIL, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. Leave to add R.C.C. number and the name of the Court before
which the case is now pending in prayer clause "B" of criminal
application No. 3735 of 2019.
2. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.
3. The applicants accused persons in both the matters are
seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing crime No.238 of 2019 registered
with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable
under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and also
cran3735.19-
consequential criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 65 of 2020
pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, on the ground
that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 submit that though respondent No.2
has initially contested the matter by filing affidavit in reply, however,
at present the parties have settled their dispute amicably. Learned
counsel appearing for the parties submit that respondent No.2 has
initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing PWDAV No. 23 of 2020
and also filed present complaint bearing F.I.R. No. 238 of 2019 as
referred to above. However, during pendency of various proceedings,
the parties have realized that there is no possibility of reconciliation
and because of intervention by the elderly persons and relatives, the
parties have settled the dispute amicably. Learned counsel
appearing of the parties submit that even the applicant Roshan in
criminal application No. 1517 of 2022 (husband of respondent No.2)
and respondent No.2 have filed a joint petition bearing HMP No. F-29
of 2022 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in terms of the
provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned
counsel submits that the applicant Roshan (husband of respondent
No.2) has deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh) towards past and future maintenance before the Family Court
in the pending matter and it is agreed between the parties that after
cran3735.19-
the decree of divorce is passed by the Family Court, respondent
No.2 will be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
5. We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the respondent
No.1-State in both the matters.
6. It appears that due to intervention of elderly persons and the
relatives, the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
Accordingly, the applicant Roshan (husband of respondent No.2) and
respondent No.2 have approached the Family Court, Nanded by
filing joint HMP No. F-29 of 2022 for a decree of divorce by mutual
consent in terms of provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Copy of the said petition is placed before us. Further, care has
also been taken to pay certain amount towards future maintenance.
In view of the same, we are satisfied that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement voluntarily.
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 :
cran3735.19-
"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:-
"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
cran3735.19-
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."
9. In view of 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 No. 3735 of 2019 is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses "B".
cran3735.19-
II. Criminal application No. 1517 of 2022 is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses "B" and "C".
III. Both the criminal applications are disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
