Bombay High Court
Niranjan S/O Rajiv Mahajan And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
967 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.173 OF 2021
NIRANJAN RAJIV MAHAJAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Mahesh Taur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1
Advocate R.R. Tandale, holding for
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 19-01-2022.
ORDER :
1. Leave to correct the number of Regular Criminal
Case in prayer clause C-1.
2. Heard fnally with the consent of parties at the
admission stage.
3. The petitioners / original accused are seeking
quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 227/2020 registered
with Osmanpura Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are also seeking
quashing of the proceedings vide R.C.C No. 1376/2021
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Aurangabad, on the ground that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Counsel for respondent No. 2 / informant submits that the
parties have arrived at amicable settlement and compromise
terms are also worked out. They have arrived at settlement
due to intervention of the close relatives. Thus, the petitioner
No.1 husband and respondent No. 2 informant have also fled
petition bearing No. 285/2021 before the Family Court,
Aurangabad under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act
for decree of divorce on mutual consent. In the said petition
they have fled compromise terms. It has agreed by them that
respondent No. 2 informant will withdraw all the proceedings
fled by her in various Courts. Learned Counsel submits that
the Family Court has now passed decree of divorce on mutual
consent. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that
the compromise purshis signed by petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 informant is placed on record.
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
5. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent
No.1 - State.
6. We have carefully gone through the compromise
purshis. It appears that the parties have already approached
the Family Court and also obtained decree of divorce on
mutual consent. They have worked out the compromise
terms before the Family Court. It further appears that they
have settled the dispute amicably due to intervention of the
close relatives. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that certain amount has been paid to respondent No. 2
informant towards permanent alimony in terms of the
compromise.
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 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 the ground of
settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh is
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
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."
8. 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 exercise of such
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
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
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
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
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."
9. In view of the terms of compromise purshis and
since the parties have already obtained decree for divorce by
mutual consent, we are satisfed that the parties have settled
their dispute and care has also been taken to pay certain
amount to respondent No. 2 informant towards permanent
alimony.
10. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), we proceed to pass the following order.
967 criwp-173.2021.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby allowed in
terms of prayer clause "C" and "C-1".
(ii) Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed
of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
