Bombay High Court
Dinesh Shankarnarayan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
971 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1291 OF 2021
1. Dinesh Shankarnarayan Kumarkandath
Nair
2. Shankarnarayan Kumarkandath Nair
3. Vatsala Shankarnarayan Kumarkandath
Nair
4. Ganesh Shankarnarayan Kumarkandth
Nair
5. Maya Ganesh Nair Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Veena Dinesh Nair Respondents
...
Mr. Menezes Joslyn, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1.
Mr. , Advocate for respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 22-03-2022.
P.C. :
1. Heard fnally with consent at the admissions
stage.
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the
proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 1906/2022 pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad arising out of
Crime No. 177/2020 registered with Satara Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 505, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground
that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement and in terms of the settlement
they have fled petition for divorce on mutual consent in terms
of the provisions of Sect6ion 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act
before the Family Court, Palakkad, State of Kerla vide O.P.
No.1115/2021. The said petition is still pending. Learned
Counsel appearing for the parties submit that it is agreed
between the parties that petitioner No. 1 - husband shall pay
an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) to respondent
No.2 towards permanent alimony by way of account transfer
to the account of respondent No. 2. It is further agreed
between the parties that petitioner No.1 - husband shall pay
Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) per trip to respondent
No. 2 towards travelling charges to attend the dates before the
Palakkad Family Court in the State of Kerla and the amount
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
shall be paid at the time of fling of the affdavit before the
Family Court and subsequent dates if contingency so arises.
Parties have mutually agreed to withdraw all the litigation
fled against each other in respective Courts of law.
4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, on
instructions from respondent No. 2 who is present in person,
submits that respondent No. 2 has received entire amount of
Rs. 6,00,000/- and she has no objection if this F.I.R. and the
consequential proceedings are quashed.
5. We have also heard learned A.P.P. for respondent
No.1 - State.
6. We have carefully gone through the contents of
complaint and affdavit of respondent No. 2 and also perused
copy of the petition fled before the Family Court of Palakkad,
State of Kerla. It appears that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement and they have already approached the
Family Court for obtaining decree of divorce on mutual
consent in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
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
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 . The
fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in
para 21 of the judgment, 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."
8. In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the 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. : (1) to secure the ends of justice,
or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised
where the offender and the 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 a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the 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 a 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 personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put
the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
the criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the
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 and
care has also been taken to grant an amount of Rs.
6,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 towards permanent alimony.
Further, a care has also been taken to pay an amount of
Rs.50,000/- per trip to attend dates of Family Court at
971 criwp-1291.2021.odt
Palakkad, State of Kerla, since respondent No. 2 resides in
the State of Maharashtra.
10. In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid
down in the above-cited case, we proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby allowed in
terms of prayer clause [B].
(ii) Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
