Bombay High Court
Mohammad Salim Shaikh And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3072 OF 2021
MOHAMMAD SALIM SHAIKH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.D. Munde, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 19-01-2022.
ORDER :
1. Heard fnalll with the consent of parties at the
admission stage.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits
that joint purshis of the terms of compromise is alreadl
placed on record. Learned Counsel for the applicants
submits that even though it's a crime of the lear 2017 vide
R.C.C. No. 160/2017, the charge is let not framed before the
trial Court.
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
4. Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submit that
applicant No.1 - husband and respondent No. 2 - informant
wife now agreed to reside together. It is further agreed that
applicant No. 1 husband and his famill members would treat
the respondent No. 2 informant with dignitl and full care
which a normal prudent man would extend. Further, the
applicant No. 1 husband and his famill members also
undertaken that thel would extend full cooperation in
resuming the matrimonial relations between applicant No.1
and respondent No. 2 and the parties would not indulge into
anl kind of litigation in future. Thel have decided to pardon
all the past acts of the respective parties.
5. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent
No.1 - State.
6. Though it is the case of lear 2017 bearing R.C.C.
No. 160/2017, the trial is not let commenced. The parties
have arrived at amicable settlement. Applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 informant have decided to stal together and
it is further undertaken bl applicant No.1 and his famill
members that thel would not do anl kind of illegal demand or
anl kind of act detrimental to the interest of respondent No.2
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
in future. It further appears from the terms of the
compromise signed bl them that respondent No. 2 has given
her consent for quashing of the criminal case bearing R.C.C.
No. 160/2017 on account of the said settlement arrived at
between them.
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 quoted para 21 of the judgment of the fve-Judge
Bench of the Punjab and Harlana High Court delivered in
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 . The
fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Harlana High Court, in
para 21 of the judgment, has framed the guidelines for
quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of
settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh is
reproduced bl 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."
8. In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
"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 statutorl 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 anl court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR mal be exercised
where the offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no categorl can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravitl of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravitl or offences
like murder, rape, dacoitl, etc. cannot be fttingll
quashed even though the victim or victim's famill
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on societl. Similarll, anl
compromise between the victim and the offender
in relation to the offences under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed bl public servants while working in
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
that capacitl, etc; cannot provide for anl basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingll and predominatingll civil favour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularll the offences arising from
commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimonl relating to
dowrl, etc. or the famill disputes where the wrong
is basicalll private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
categorl of cases, High Court mal quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibilitl 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 bl 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 contrarl 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
931 criappln-3072.2021.odt
answer to the above question(s) is in the
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
9. After going through the terms of compromise and
after hearing the submissions of Counsel appearing for both
the parties, we are satisfed that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement voluntarill. It further appears from the
terms of the compromise that applicant No. 1 and his famill
members have undertaken to treat the respondent No. 2 with
dignitl and full care and also thel would extend full
cooperation in resuming the matrimonial relationship
between them.
10. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid
down bl the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is herebl allowed in
terms of praler clause "B" and "B-1".
(ii) Criminal Application is accordingll disposed
of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
