Vishal Amrutrao Gadekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2885 Bom

                                       {1}
                                                              crappln4125.19.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4125 OF 2019

 Vishal Amrutrao Gadekar & others                        Applicants

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & another                      Respondents


 Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane, advocate for the applicants
 Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1.
 Mr. B. S. Dhawale, 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 at the stage of admission.

2 The applicants-accused are seeking quashing of the

First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0389/2019, registered

with Kadim-Jalna Police Station, for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and are also seeking

quashing of the proceedings bearing RCC No. 102/2020, pending

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, on the ground

{2} crappln4125.19.odt

that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

3 Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned

Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-informant submit that

during pendency of the Criminal Application, the parties have

decided to settle the disputes between them and to obtain a decree

of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, applicant no.1-

husband and Respondent No.2 have fled a Petition bearing No.

F-84/2020 before the Family Court at Jalna for obtaining decree of

divorce by mutual consent in terms of the provisions of Section

13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and same is pending for fnal

disposal.

4 Learned Counsel for both the parties further submit

that it is agreed between the parties that the applicant-husband

shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Respondent No.2-wife

as permanent alimony. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2

submits that Respondent No.2 has received an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- at the time of fling Petition No.F-84/2020 before the

Family Court at Jalna vide Demand Draft No. 264781, dated

01.09.2021 and the remaining amount will be disbursed at the

time of fling evidence affdavit in the said petition before the

{3} crappln4125.19.odt

Family Court at Jalna. It is also agreed between the parties that

after withdrawing all the pending cases against each other, the

evidence affdavit will be fled in the petition pending before the

Family Court. The learned Counsel submits that even in pursuant

to the said agreement, Respondent No.2 has withdrawn the

proceedings bearing PWDVA No.67/2021. Copy of the award

passed in Lok Adalat is marked as Exhibit R-2. Learned Counsel

for Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.2-informant is

no more interested in prosecuting the First Information Report and

the case arising out of the said crime bearing RCC No.102 /2020.

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

State.

6 It appears that the parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement and they have also approached the Family Court by

fling petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent. Further,

certain amount has also been paid to Respondent No.2 towards

permanent alimony out of the agreed amount between the parties.

Further, the settlement between the parties has also been acted

upon by them by withdrawing the proceedings bearing PWDVA No.

67/2021.

{4} crappln4125.19.odt

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 :

               "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

{5} crappln4125.19.odt

(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 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

{6} crappln4125.19.odt

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 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

{7} crappln4125.19.odt

affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9 It appears that the parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement voluntarily. A care has also been taken to pay

permanent alimony to Respondent No.2 and 50% of the amount

out of the agreed amount has been paid to Respondent No.2 and

remaining amount will be paid after fling of the evidence affdavit

in the pending petition before the Family Court, Jalna.

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

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 "B" and "C-2".

(ii) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

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

 adb