Bombay High Court
Darshan S/O. Dilipkumar Gangwal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 938 application 3571-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3571 OF 2019
DARSHAN S/O. DILIPKUMAR GANGWAL AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. K. D. Jadhav
APP for Respondent no.1- State: Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
Advocate for Respondent no.2 :Mr. A.P. Lohada h/f Mr. S.S. Ladda
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2022.
....
ORDER :
1. Heard fnalll with consent at admission stage.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants at this stage submits that
during pendencl of this criminal application, charge sheet has
been submitted. Since the parties have arrived at amicable
settlement, we permit the applicants to amend the application to
seek quashing of the proceeding vide RCC No. 2684 of 2019,
pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad.
3. The applicants are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing
Crime No. 317 of 2019, registered with Police Station, Satara,
Aurangabad for the ofence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. Further more, bl wal of
2 938 application 3571-19
amendment, the applicants are also seeking quashing of
proceeding bearing RCC No. 2684 of 2019, pending before Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, on the ground that parties
have arrived at amicable settlement. Learned counsel for the
applicants and respondent no.2 submit that trial is let not
commenced.
4. Respondent no.2 has also fled an afdavit in repll along
with copl of the compromise arrived at between the parties in the
civil miscellaneous application fled before the District Court,
Aurangabad for custodl of the child.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement and thel have decided to live
separate permanentll. Learned counsel submits that in Civil
Miscellaneous Application No. 260 of 2019 before the District
Court, Aurangabad seeking custodl of the child, the respondent
no.2 and applicant no.1 have arrived at amicable settlement and
the terms of the compromise are also worked out. Accordingll
compromise was reduced in to writing and it was placed before
the District Court in the said Civil Miscellaneous Proceeding
No.260 of 2019. Learned counsel submits that thel have decided
to end their marriage bl wal of mutual consent. Respondent
3 938 application 3571-19
no.2 has alreadl fled HMP No. A-281 of 2019 for a decree of
dissolution of marriage and now thel have agreed to fle the
necessarl application for amendment to get their marriage
dissolved bl wal of mutual consent. Further, it is also agreed to
pal certain lump-sum amount to respondent no.2 as permanent
alimonl. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, on instructions,
submits that the amount has been transferred in the account of
respondent no.2 through RTGS. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 has fled afdavit in repll to that efect.
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 view expressed bl the fve-Judge Bench of
the Punjab and Harlana High Court in case Kulwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769, wherein the Punajab and
Haralana High Court has dealt with the issue that as to whether
the High Court has the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceeding on settlement. The Supreme Court has
referred the guidelines framed in the said case and reproduced
the same in para no.48 of the Judgment. The guidelines No.21(a)
is relevant for the present discussion and the same is reproduced
herein.
4 938 application 3571-19
"21. ..... (a) Cases arising from matrimonial
discord, even if other ofences are introduced for
aggravation of the case."
7. In the case cited in para no. 61 the Supreme Court 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 diferent from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding the
ofences 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 ofender 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 exercise of such power, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
crime. Heinous and serious ofences of mental
depravity or ofences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fttingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the ofender have settled the
5 938 application 3571-19
dispute. Such ofences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the ofender in
relation to the ofences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the ofences committed
by public servants while working in that capacity, etc;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such ofences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a diferent footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the ofences arising from
commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the ofences 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 ofender 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 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
6 938 application 3571-19
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 afrmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
8. We have carefulll gone through the afdavit in repll and so
also the terms of compromise. It appears that the parties have
agreed to end their marriage bl mutual consent. Further care has
also been taken to give an amount of Rs.11,75,000/- to
respondent no.2-wife as a permanent alimonl. Now the said
agreed amount has alreadl been transferred in the account of
respondent no.2. Thus, it appears that the parties have
voluntarill arrived at amicable settlement.
9. In view of above and in terms of the ratio laid down in the
above cited case, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
I) Criminal Application is herebl allowed in terms
of praler clause "B ".
II) Criminal Application is accordingll disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vsm/-
