Bombay High Court
Manish Prabhakar Nikam vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 cran 1772.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1772 OF 2020
MANISH PRABHAKAR NIKAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr L S Mahajan h/f Desale N N.
APP for Respondents: Mr. S S Dande
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. S S Khoche h/f D. P.
Palodkar
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: March 02, 2022
...
PER COURT :-
1. Leave to add the prayer clause about quashing of
the proceedings bearing RCC No.147 of 2020 pending
before the JMFC, Sakri. Addition be carried out
forthwith.
2. Heard fnally with consent of parties at admission
stage.
3. The applicants/original accused are seeking
quashing of the FIR bearing crime No.85 of 2019
registered with Pimpalner police station, Tq. Sakri,
District Dhule for the offence punishable under sections
aaa/-
2 cran 1772.20.odt
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and also seeking
quashing of the proceedings bearing RCC No.147 of
2020 pending before the JMFC, Sakri, on the ground
that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned
counsel for respondent no.2 submit that due to
intervention of the family members of the applicant no.1
and respondent no.2, they have decided to settle their
dispute amicably. Further, they have also decided to get
separated permanently. In consequence thereof, the
applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have fled the
petition before the Civil Judge S.D., Pune bearing HMP
No.810 of 2019 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent
in terms of section 13 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It
is also agreed between the parties that the applicant
no.1 husband shall pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the
respondent no.2 towards the permanent alimony and
said amount will be paid to the respondent no.2 after
the fnal decision in the proceedings under section 13
(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Copy of the said marriage
aaa/-
3 cran 1772.20.odt
petition no.810 of 2019 is annexed to this application,
marked at exhibit R-1 (page 52). As per the terms of the
settlement, custody of the child namely Chi. Omkar will
remain with the applicant no.1 husband with the
visitation rights to respondent no.2.
5. We have also heard the learned APP for the
respondent-State.
6. It appears that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement and care has also been taken to
give certain lumpsum amount to respondent no.2
towards permanent alimony. Further, the applicant
no.1-husband has taken custody of the child by consent
with visitation rights to respondent no.2. Respondent
no.2 has fled affdavit to that effect. It appears that the
parties have decided to reside separately and
accordingly, they have also approached the Civil Judge
S.D. Pune by fling HMP No.810 of 2019 for a decree of
divorce by mutual consent in terms of the provisions of
section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act.
aaa/-
4 cran 1772.20.odt
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. A fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by
placing reliance on the various judgments of the
Supreme court, has framed the guidelines for quashing
of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement.
Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment
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."
8. The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the
judgment of Gian Singh (supra) has made following
observations :-
aaa/-
5 cran 1772.20.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 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 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 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 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 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
aaa/-
6 cran 1772.20.odt
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 affrmative, the High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
9. In the instant case, we are satisfed that the
parties have arrived at amicable settlement, voluntarily.
10. 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' and 'B-1'.
aaa/-
7 cran 1772.20.odt
ii. Criminal application accordingly disposed
off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
