Bombay High Court

Madhukar Natu Bhamre And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 January, 2022

Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1083 OF 2021

1.        Shri. Madhukar s/o. Natu Bhamre

2.        Shri. Natu s/o. Khandu Bhamre

3.        Mrs. Vatsalabai W/o. Natu Bhamre

4.        Sanjay S/o. Natu Bhamre

5.        Shri. Vasudev S/o. Natu Bhamre

6.        Darshan S/o. Sanjay Sonar                    ...Petitioners.

                  Versus

1.        State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  ....Respondents.

                                        ...
                Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni
                  APP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. R.D. Sanap
                  Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. H.P. Randhir
                                        ...

                                   CORAM : V.K. JADHAV &
                                           SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 06/01/2022

PER COURT :

. Heard.

2. The learned A.P.P. submits that at present chargesheet has

been submitted. The parties have arrived at amicable settlement and

accordingly seeking quashing of the F.I.R. on the basis of amicable

settlement arrived at. In view of the same, we permit the applicants to

Cri.W.P.No.1083/21

carry out the amendment in the prayer clause to seek quashing of the

proceedings forthwith.

3. By consent of parties, heard finally at admission stage.

4. The petitioners/original accused are seeking quashing of

the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.120/2021 registered with Erandol Police

Station, Jalgaon on the ground that the parties have arrived at

amicable settlement. The learned counsel for petitioners and the

learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submit that the parties

have arrived at amicable settlement and accordingly terms of

compromise are reduced into writing which is annexed to affidavit in

reply of respondent No. 2. The learned counsel further submit that in

terms of the comprise worked out between the parties, the petitioners

No. 1 husband and respondent No. 2 have jointly filed petition for

mutual divorce under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing

H.M.P. No. 224/2021 pending before the Civil Judge, S.D., Jalgaon.

Further, the care has also been taken to grant permanent alimony of

Rs.1,25,000/- and out of that amount, amount of Rs.50,000/- has

been alredy paid to the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for

respondent No. 2 submits that they have been agreed to end their

marital relations and the custody of the sole daughter is agreed to be

given to respondent No. 2 mother.

Cri.W.P.No.1083/21

5. 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 five-Judge Bench of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of

Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769. A five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and

Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by placing reliance

on the various judgments of the Supreme court, has framed the

guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of

settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment 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."

The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the judgment of

Gian Singh (supra) 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 different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the

Cri.W.P.No.1083/21

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 predominatingly 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

Cri.W.P.No.1083/21

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."

6. We have carefully gone through the contents of the

affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 2 and also the compromise

annexed to the affidavit in reply. It appears that the parties have

arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. The learned counsel for

petitioners has pointed out in the memorandum of compromise that

the matter came to be compromised between respondent No. 2 and

petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 herein. However, respondent No. 6 is the

nephew and as such his name is not incorporated in the contents of

memorandum of compromise. The learned counsel for respondent No.

2 submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the

parties amicably, respondent No. 2 is not interested in prosecuting the

case and she is giving consent to quash the F.I.R. against all the