Bombay High Court
Pravin Anil Jagtap And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
cran188.222
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
960 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2022
PRAVIN ANIL JAGTAP AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Patil Ujwal Subhash
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Patil Prafullasing
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 8th MARCH, 2022
PER COURT:-
1. With consent of the parties heard finally at admission stage.
2. The applicants are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. bearing No.
415 of 2021 registered with Parola police station, District Jalgaon for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506
r.w. 34 of I.P.C. on the ground that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 informant submit that the applicants and respondent
No.2 decided to settle the dispute by way of amicably. In view of the
same, respondent No.2 has given her consent for withdrawal of all
proceedings filed by her including the present crime registered at her
instance. Learned counsel submits that both the parties have filed a
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2022 00:45:11 :::
cran188.222
-2-
joint petition bearing HMP No. 10 of 2022 for decree of divorce with
mutual consent in terms of the provisions of Section 13(B) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chalisgaon in
terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The applicant
No.1 husband has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12,50,000/-
(Rupees Twelve lacs) to respondent No.2 and out of the said
amount, an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six lacs and twenty
five thousand) is already paid to respondent No.2 wife. Learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has filed
affidavit about settlement and though the said fact of receipt of the
amount to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six lacs and twenty five
thousand) is not specifically mentioned in the affidavit, however, he
submits that the balance amount of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six lacs
and twenty five thousand) will be paid by the applicants to
respondent No.2 on the date of final decision of H.M.P. No. 10 of
2022.
4. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.
5. We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint
so also the police papers. We have also gone through the affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2. The parties have placed
before us the copy of HMP No. 10 of 2022 pending before the
C.J.S.D. Chalisgaon. It appears that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement voluntarily and the care has also been taken to
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2022 00:45:11 :::
cran188.222
-3-
grant lump-sum amount for future maintenance to respondent No.2.
6. 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
referred the view expressed by five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the judgment delivered in the case of
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 and further
referred the guidelines framed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the said case for quashing of proceedings on the basis of
settlement. The Supreme court has also reproduced the guidelines
of Punjab and Haryana High Court in para 48. So far as present
application is concerned, the guidelines as mentioned in para 21(a) is
relevant, which is reproduced herein-below:-
"21. .........
(a) cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other
offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
7. Thus, the Supreme Court in para No.61 of the judgment in the
case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) has
made the following observations:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus:
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2022 00:45:11 :::
cran188.222
-4-
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 in that capacity etc; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly 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
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2022 00:45:11 :::
cran188.222
-5-
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."
8. Thus, after going through the contents of application and the
affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and further the contents of petition
bearing HMP No. 10 of 2022, we are satisfied that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily and in view of the same
and in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
Gian Singh (supra) we proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
i) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A".
ii) Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
