Bombay High Court
Sandeep Shriram Chaugule And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crappln159522.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1595 OF 2022 WITH
Sandeep s/o Shriram Chaugule,
age: 39 years, Occ: Service,
R/o 10, Peri Palace, Near Pumping
Station, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Applicant
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Offcer,
Loni Police Station, Loni,
District Ahmednagar.
02 Sow. Sumati Sandeep Chaugule,
age: 37 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Saraswati Nagar, Loni (Kh.),
Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1100 OF 2021
01 Sandeep s/o Shriram Chaugule Deleted vide
Court's order
dated 24.08.2021.
02 Shriram s/o Shetiba Chaugule,
aged: 67 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o 10, Pearl Palace, Near
Pumping Station, Gangapur Road,
Nashik, Tq. & District Nashik.
03 Sow. Pramila w/o Shriram Chaugule,
aged 64 years, Occ: Household,
R/o 10, Pearl Palace, Near
Pumping Station, Gangapur Road,
Nashik, Tq. & District Nashik. Applicants
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 00:47:46 :::
{2}
crappln159522.odt
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Offcer,
Loni Police Station,
District Ahmednagar.
02 Sow. Sumati Sandeep Chaugule,
aged: 37 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Saraswati Nagar, Loni (Kh.),
Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. Respondents
Mr. A. M. Inamdar, advocate for the applicants
Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. O. R. Markad, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 02nd May, 2022.
PC :
1 Leave to insert RCC Number in the prayer clause.
2 Learned Counsel for the applicants has pointed out
that though the applicant-husband has fled Criminal Application
No. 1100 of 2021 along with other co-accused persons, however, he
has withdrawn the said application to his extent for the reason
that this Court has expressed its disinclination to consider his
application for quashing of the crime.
3 Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the
parties have now arrived at an amicable settlement and in view of
{3}
crappln159522.odt
the same, the applicant-husband has fled instant Criminal
Application for quashing of the First Information Report and the
criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement. In view of the
same, Criminal Application No. 1595 of 2022 is accepted and
heard along with Criminal Application No. 1100 of 2021. Learned
A. P. P. waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1-State. Learned
Counsel Mr. Markad waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.
4 By consent of learned Counsel for respective parties,
heard fnally at the stage of admission.
5 The applicants in both the applications i.e. Criminal
Application No. 1595 of 2022 and Criminal Application No. 1100 of
2021 are seeking quashing of the First Information Report bearing
Crime No. 104 of 2021, registered with Loni Police Station, Tq.
Rahata, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and criminal proceedings bearing R. C. C. No. 348 of 2021,
pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata,
District Ahmednagar, on the ground that the parties have arrived
at an amicable settlement.
{4}
crappln159522.odt
6 Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the parties have arrived
at an amicable settlement voluntarily. Learned Counsel for the
parties submit that due to the intervention of relatives of both the
sides, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and they
have decided to get separated permanently. Learned Counsel for
the parties submit that applicant no.1 - Sandeep and Respondent
No.2 - Sumati had already approached the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Rahata, by fling Hindu Marriage Petition No. 74 of
2020 in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriages Act for decree
of divorce by mutual consent. However, the said fact has not been
mentioned in the compromise pursis.
7 Learned Counsel for the parties submit that it is
agreed between the parties that the applicant-husband shall pay
an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lakhs) to Respondent
No.2-wife towards full and fnal settlement in respect of
maintenance amount and out of the said amount, an amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs) has already been paid to
Respondent No.2-wife. So far as balance amount is concerned,
applicant-husband has issued two post-dated cheques to
{5}
crappln159522.odt
Respondent-wife each for Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven lakhs Fifty
thousand) and it is agreed that said cheques will be encashed
within eighteen months. It is further agreed between the parties
that an amount of Rs. One lakh per year will be paid by applicant-
husband to Respondent No.2-wife towards maintenance and
education expenses of their minor son.
8 We have also heard learned A. P. P. for Respondent
No.1-State.
9 It appears that the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement voluntarily. A care has also been taken to pay
substantive amount for the future maintenance of Respondent
No.2-wife. It is also agreed to pay an amount of Rs. One lakh per
year for the minor son towards his maintenance and education
expenses.
10 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-
{6}
crappln159522.odt
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."
11 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
{7}
crappln159522.odt
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
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
{8}
crappln159522.odt
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
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
12 In view of the above discussion and in terms of the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforce-cited
{9}
crappln159522.odt
case, we proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Both i.e. Criminal Application No. 1595 of 2022 and
Criminal Application No. 1100 of 2021 are allowed and disposed of
as such.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
