Bombay High Court
Mohammad Numan Arefulla Khan And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
945-CriAppln-14-2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2022
1. MOHAMMAD NUMAN AREFULLA KHAN
2. LUKMAN KHAN S/O AREFULLA KHAN
3. AREFULLA KHAN S/O GAUSKHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Londhe Bharat G.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. A. Bagal
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. The applicants-accused are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing
No. 276/2021 registered with Vedantnagar Police Station, Taluka and
District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 504,
34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, on the ground that the
parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived at
the settlement in terms of the compromise between them. The
945-CriAppln-14-2022
compromise had taken place due to intervention of members of both
the families. Applicant no.1 is now ready to cohabit with respondent
no.2-informant. Respondent no.2-informant is also ready to stay with
applicant no.1-husband. Learned counsel for the applicants and
learned counsel for respondent no.2 submit that at present
respondent no.2-informant is carrying pregnancy and the parties thus
have arrived at amicable settlement. Learned counsel submits that the
parties are also present in the Court hall.
3. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. We have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by
respondent no.2. The parties belong to Muslim community and their
marriage took place on 25.12.2016. They have amicably settled their
dispute and now agreed to reside together with love and affection.
Thus, respondent no.2 is not intending to proceed with the FIR and
prays for quashing of the same against all the applicants. We have
also interacted with the parties and they have also told us that the
matter is amicably settled between them and now respondent no.2 is
carrying pregnancy. They are residing together as husband and wife
and there is no dispute at present.
945-CriAppln-14-2022
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. The five-Judge Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by
placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme court in the
cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551,
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, Simrikhia v. Dolley
Mukherjee (1990) 2 SCC 437, B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
(2003) 4 SCC 675 and Ram Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(1999) 2 SCC 213, 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 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."
945-CriAppln-14-2022
The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the judgment in
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 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
945-CriAppln-14-2022
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 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."
945-CriAppln-14-2022
6. After going through the affidavit and after interacting with the
parties, we are of the opinion that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement voluntarily. In view of the same and in terms of
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, the
Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The
Criminal Application is accordingly disposed off.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
