Georje Rafael Thorat And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2884 Bom

                                       {1}
                                                              crappln194121.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2021

 Georje Rafel Thorat & others                            Applicants

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & another                      Respondents


 Mr. G. L. Deshpande, advocate for the applicants
 Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent No.1.
 Mr. J. R. Shah, advocate for Respondent No.2.


                                CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
                                        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

                               DATE     : 24th March, 2022.

 PC :

 1                Heard fnally at the stage of admission itself by consent

of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2 The applicants-accused are seeking quashing of the

First Information Report bearing Crime No.512/2021, registered

with M. I. D. C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 red with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, and are also seeking quashing of the

criminal proceedings, arising out of the said crime, bearing RCC

No.935/2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

{2} crappln194121.odt

Class, Ahmednagar, on the ground that the parties have arrived at

an amicable settlement.

3 Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned

Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that during pendency of this

Criminal Application, the parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement and in terms of the said settlement, applicant no.1-

husband and Respondent No.2-wife have amicably settled the

dispute between them and decided to cohabit peacefully and now

both are residing with each other at the house of applicant no.1-

husband. The learned Counsel submits that the parties are well

educated and now they have decided to lead their marital life

peacefully.

4 Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the

applicant no.1-husband and Respondent No.2-wife have fled joint

affdavit of compromise stating that Respondent No.2 is not

interested to prosecute the crime so also pending case before the

Court arising out of the said crime.

5 We have also heard learned A. P. P. for Respondent-

State.

{3} crappln194121.odt

6 In terms of the settlement arrived at between the

parties, Respondent No.2 has decided to cohabit with applicant

no.1-husband at his house. Both are well educated and now they

have decided to lead their marital life peacefully.

7 In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and

others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble 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 . The fve-

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. Clause (a) of the said guidelines is relevant which is

reproduced herein below :

{4} crappln194121.odt

"21 (a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if the other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."

8 The Hon'ble 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:

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

{5} crappln194121.odt

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 pre-dominatingly 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 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

{6} crappln194121.odt

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 We are satisfed that the parties have arrived at an

amicable settlement voluntarily and accordingly Respondent No.2-

wife has started cohabiting with applicant no.1-husband at his

house and they have decided to lead their marital life peacefully.

10 In view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down

{7} crappln194121.odt

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited case, we proceed

to pass the following order:

(i) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of

prayer clause "F".

(ii) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                         (V.K.JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                        JUDGE

 adb