Bombay High Court
Tukaram Raosaheb Kale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2022
TUKARAM RAOSAHEB KALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bora Satyajit S.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. S. Dande
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. The applicant nos. 1 to 5-original accused and applicant no.6-
informant have jointly filed this application for quashing of the FIR
bearing C.R. No. 917/2020 registered with Newasa Police Station,
Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC on the ground that the
parties have arrived at amicable settlement and they have also
submitted the compromise terms in the divorce petition preferred by
applicant no.1-husband before the Family Court at Pune.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.6
and applicant no.1 had performed marriage on 19.04.2017 and they
have voluntarily decided to reside separately by obtaining a decree of
divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel submits that applicant
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 05:11:42 :::
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-2-
no.1 Tukaram has filed Petition-A No. 250 of 2020 before the Family
Court, Pune for a decree of divorce and in the said petition, applicant
no.1 and applicant no.6 have filed the compromise terms. It has been
agreed between the parties that they will seek a decree of divorce by
mutual consent in terms of the provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act and accordingly an application will be submitted in
Petition-A No. 250 of 2020 for conversion. It is also agreed between
them that applicant no.1-husband will pay an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to applicant no.6-wife towards
her permanent alimony. The said amount is already deposited before
the Family Court, Pune through D.D. It is further agreed between the
parties that applicant no.6 will withdraw all the criminal proceedings,
including the complaint which is the subject matter of this criminal
application. Learned counsel has pointed out the copy of said
compromise terms annexed to this application marked at Exhibit "B"
(page 18 of the application).
3. We have also heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. We have carefully gone through the compromise terms Exhibit
"B". it appears to us that the parties have arrived at settlement
voluntarily and now they have agreed to stay separately by obtaining
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 05:11:42 :::
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-3-
decree of divorce by mutual consent. Care has also been taken to pay
certain amount to applicant no.6-wife as lump sum amount towards
one time maintenance.
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 :
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 05:11:42 :::
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-4-
"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 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
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 05:11:42 :::
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-5-
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 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."
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 29/01/2022 05:11:42 :::
948-CriAppln-19-2022
-6-
6. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the above cited case, we proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
I. Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of
prayer clause (B).
II. The Criminal Application is accordingly disposed off.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vre
