Bombay High Court
Ramesh Shivaji Khandare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
964-CriAppln-905-2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
964 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 905 OF 2020
SUBHASH S/O. MANOHAR GHUGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Thombre S. S.
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. G. Hange
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2020
SUSHILA W/O MOTIRAM RAKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. G. Hange
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 203 OF 2020
1. RAMESH SHIVAJI KHANDARE
2. JAGANNATH RAMBHAU KHANDARE
3. MARUTI VITTHAL KHANDARE
4. SHIVAJI VITHAL KHANDARE
5. PARMESHWAR LAHU KHANARE
6. HARIBHAU VITHAL KHANDARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. N. R. Thorat
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. G. Hange
.....
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2022 23:44:40 :::
964-CriAppln-905-2020
-2-
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2020
TEJAS S/O SUBHASH NEHARKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dnyaneshwar B. Pokale
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. G. Hange
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. Leave to carryout amendment in the prayer clause in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 203 of 2020, so also leave to add the Sessions Case
number in the prayer clause in Criminal Application No. 95 of 2020
and Criminal Application No. 451 of 2020.
2. The applicants/petitioners in all these four applications/writ
petition are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing crime no. 325 of
2019 registered with Beed (Rural) Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 306, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and also seeking
quashing of the proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 178 of 2021
964-CriAppln-905-2020
pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on the ground
that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners in all these four
matters submits that the deceased was the husband of respondent
no.2-informant and he had allegedly committed suicide on account of
harassment caused to him by the applicants/petitioners on various
occasions. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners
submit that the allegations are vague. Firstly, it has been alleged that
there were serious allegations about commission of rape against the
cousin of deceased, namely, Dnyaneshwar Khandare and in
connection with the said crime, the relatives of the victim girl had
repeatedly insisted the husband of respondent no.2-informant to
cause mediation in that matter and settle the same by giving certain
amount to them. It is also alleged in the complaint that those relatives
of the victim girl were also threatening the deceased husband of
respondent no.2-informant that in case he would not try for the
settlement, he will also be arraigned as an accused person in
connection with the said crime. Thus, deceased husband of
respondent no.2-informant was taking stress about the said incident.
Secondly, there are also allegations in the complaint that the
deceased husband of respondent no.2 was taking stress in respect of
964-CriAppln-905-2020
measurement of the agricultural land and that his uncle and uncle's
sons used to give him threats by making a phone call in connection
with the said measurement of the agricultural land. The deceased
husband of respondent no.2 was also taking stress of that. It is also
alleged in the complaint that deceased husband of respondent no.2
was getting frequent threatening calls from one unknown number and
therefore, he was also taking stress of that. Learned counsel appearing
for the applicants/petitioners submit that the suicide note though
mentioned the names of all the applicants/petitioners, however, it is
not clear from the allegations made in the said suicide note as to who
is actually responsible for the suicidal death of deceased husband of
respondent no.2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners in all
the four matters and the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 2 submit that the parties have now arrived at an amicable
settlement. Respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply to that
effect. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the
applicants/petitioners and respondent no.2 are relatives of each other
and due to intervention of respectable persons from the village
Karegavan and the relatives of both the parties, the matter has been
amicably settled in order to keep good relations between them in
964-CriAppln-905-2020
future. Thus, respondent no.2 do not want to prosecute the case
further and she has no objection to quash the proceedings bearing
R.C.C. No. 177/2020 (Sessions Case No. 178 of 2021).
5. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
6. It appears that respondent no.2-informant has made the
allegations mainly on the basis of the suicide note. A reference has
been given in the complaint about the said suicide note and the
possibility of suicide of the husband of respondent no.2 on three
counts. It thus appears that the allegations are somewhat vague in
nature and on the basis of such allegations, the possibility of
conviction is very bleak. Furthermore, the parties have arrived at an
amicable settlement due to intervention of the respectable persons of
their village and also for the reason that the applicants/petitioners
and respondent no.2 are relatives. In order to maintain good relations
in future, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. It
appears that the parties have arrived at the settlement voluntarily.
7. In the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 [MANU/SC/0235/2014], in
para no. 31, the Supreme Court after referring various decisions on
964-CriAppln-905-2020
the subject, laid down the principles by which the High Courts would
be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceeding. The said principles are sumed up in para 31, Clause (III)
of which is relevant for the present discussion and reproduced herein
below:
"31(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to
have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender."
In terms of the said clause (III), the Supreme Court has laid
down that such a power of quashing of the proceedings on settlement
is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such
964-CriAppln-905-2020
offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on the
society. In the instant case, the offence does not fall in the said
category and appears to be private in nature having no serious impact
on the society.
8. In the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anantrai Doshi, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 29, while considering the
issue of quashing on the basis of settlement of dispute between the
parties, the Supreme Court has given weightage to the nature and
gravity of the offence and its societal impact. The Supreme Court has
also referred the principles laid down in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
9. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,
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 . Clause 21(e) which is relevant
for the present discussion is reproduced herein below:
"21. ..... (e). The offences against human body
964-CriAppln-905-2020
other than murder and culpable homicide where the
victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in
the category where compounding may not be
permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery,
docoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of
rape should also fall in the prohibited category.
Offences committed by public servants purporting to
act in that capacity as also offences against public
servant while the victims are acting in the discharge
of their duty must remain non-compoundable.
Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter VII
(relating to army, navy and air force) must remain
non-compoundable ."
10. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, we are satisfied
that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily in
order to keep good relations between them in future. They are
relatives inter se. In view of the same and the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
I. Criminal Application No. 905 of 2020 is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses "B" and "C-1".
II. Criminal Application No. 451 of 2020 is allowed in
964-CriAppln-905-2020
terms of prayer clauses "B" and "F".
III. Criminal Writ Petition No. 203 of 2020 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause "B".
IV. Criminal Application No. 95 of 2020 is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses "B" and "F".
V. All the four matters are disposed off accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
