Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O. Rahulkumar Bodade ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1) cria2809.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
968 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2809 OF 2019
PRAKASH S/O. RAHULKUMAR BODADE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Ms.Pallavi Wangikar h/f. Mr.R.V. Gore, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr.S.D. Ghayal, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.S.M.Mule h/f. Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV &
SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE,JJ.
DATED : 15.03.2022
PC :-
01. By consent of the parties, heard finally at
admission stage.
02. The applicants are seeking quashing of FIR
bearing Crime No.214 of 2019 registered with Police
Station Ramanand, Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon, for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 294, 323, 504, 506,
507 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants are also
seeking quashing of proceedings bearing RCC No.622 of
(2) cria2809.19
2019 pending before the Court of JMFC, Jalgaon on the
ground that the parties have arrived at amicable
settlement.
03. Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned
Counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably settled due to
intervention of the relatives of the applicants and
respondent No.2. In terms of the said settlement,
respondent No.2 has withdrawn PWDVA No.236 of 2019
pending before the Court of JMFC, Jalgaon on 25.09.2021.
Said proceedings came to be initiated on the application
filed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that in
view of compromise between the parties, respondent No.2
is residing with applicant No.1-husband since April,
2021. They are leading happy married life. Thus,
respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing of the
proceedings. Learned Counsel submits that respondent
(3) cria2809.19
No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply to that effect.
04. We have also heard learned APP for the
respondent/ State.
05. It appears that due to intervention of the
relatives from both the sides, the parties have arrived
at settlement and in terms of said settlement, respondent
No.2 - wife is residing with applicant No.1 - husband
since April, 2021 and they are leading happy married
life.
06. 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. A five-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,
(4) cria2809.19
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."
The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the
judgment of 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
(5) cria2809.19
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
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.
07. In the instant case, applicant No.1 and
respondent No.2 since leading happy married life due to
settlement, we are satisfied that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. In view of
(6) cria2809.19
above in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
above cited case, we proceed to pass following order :-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (B) and (B-1).
[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE,J.] [V.K. JADHAV,J.]
snk/2022/MAR22/cria2809.19
