Bombay High Court
Satyashil Vasantrao Wathore And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 914 APPLN 878-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
914 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.878 OF 2022
SATYASHIL VASANTRAO WATHORE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Madhav C. Ghode
APP for Respondent no.1-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Sharda P. Chate
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 28/04/2022.
....
P. C. :
1. Counsel representing applicants, is absent. Applicant No.1
and respondent no.2 are present before us in person. Applicant
no.1 submits that their counsel is not responding. Thus, applicant
no.1-husband and respondent no.2 submit that advocate may be
appointed for them at the expenses of the State. Respondent no.2
wife informed to us that the matter has been amicably settled
between them and in terms of the settlement the respondent no.2
wife is residing with applicant no.1 husband at her matrimonal
home.
2. We accordingly appoint learned counsel Mr. Madhav C. Ghode
to represent applicants on pro-bono basis. Similarly, we appoint
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 13:08:01 :::
2 914 APPLN 878-22
learned Ms. Sharda P. Chate to represent respondent no.2 on pro-
bono basis.
3. Heard fnally with consent of the parties at admission stage.
4. The applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime
No. 234 of 2018, registered with Begumpura Police Station,
Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC as well as consequential
proceeding bearing RCC No. 330 of 2019 on the ground that the
parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants and the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submit that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement out side of the court. The applicant
no.1 husband and respondent no.2 wife have decided to cohabit
together. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit
that respondent no.2 wife is residing with applicant no.1 husband
since last fve months. Learned counsel appearing for the parties
submit that even applicant no.1 husband and respondent no.2 wife
have fled a joint pursis Exhibit-9 to that effect in a pending matter
under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 bearing PWDVA No. 625 of 2018 and by order
dated 28/01/2022 the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Court No.6,
Aurangabad has disposed of the proceeding as withdrawn.
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 13:08:01 :::
3 914 APPLN 878-22
Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that in terms of
status report Exhibit-C, page no. 27 the said case is still pending
and the case stage is awaiting summons. Learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 has fled a consent
affdavit to that effect.
6. We have also heard the learned APP for the State.
7. In terms of the settlement out of the court, respondent no.2 is
now residing with her husband applicant no.1 at her matrimonial
home. She is residing with applicant with no.1 since last fve
months. Respondent no.2 has also initiated a domestic violence
proceeding before JMFC and those proceedings also came to be
withdrawn by fling a joint pursis in terms of the settlement out of
the court. We are satisfed that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement voluntarily. Respondent no.2 wife is not
interested to prosecute the complaint.
8. 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 Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 . The fve-Judge Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, has
framed the guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 13:08:01 :::
4 914 APPLN 878-22
the ground of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder
Singh 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."
9. In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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. : (1) 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 FIR may be exercised where
the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 13:08:01 :::
5 914 APPLN 878-22
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 a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the
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 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 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 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
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2022 13:08:01 :::
6 914 APPLN 878-22
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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. In view of above and in terms of ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
I) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of
amended prayer clause "A",
II) Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vsm/-
