Bombay High Court
Akash @ Vikcy Ramesh Hadule vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crappln321221.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3212 OF 2021
Akash @ Vicky s/o Ramesh Hadule,
age: 24 years, Occ: Student,
R/o R-27, Mhada 149, Pratapgad
Nagar, Near Baliram Patil
High School, Cidco, Aurangabad. Applicant
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
02 Vrushali d/o Baliram Kharche,
age: 23 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Flat No.16, Augasti Housing
Society, N-9, Cidco, Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant
Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. G. L. Tade, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 02nd May, 2022.
PC :
1 By consent of learned Counsel for respective parties,
heard fnally at the stage of admission itself.
2 The applicant-accused is seeking quashing of the First
Information Report bearing Crime No. 0717 of 2021, registered with
Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable
{2}
crappln321221.odt
under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
66(c) and 6(d) of the Information Technology Act and also
consequential proceedings bearing RCC No. 251 of 2022, pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, on
the ground that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.
3 Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned
Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submit that the parties
have arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily. Learned
Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the applicant and
Respondent No.2 are highly educated and both are unmarried.
The applicant is B.Sc. & M.B.A., I.T. and Respondent No.2 is also
a graduate. They both have future career prospects.
4 Thus, considering the future prospects of both i.e.
applicant and Respondent No.2 and since elderly members of their
respective families are searching partners for marriage, they have
arrived at an amicable settlement. Consequently, Respondent No.2
is not willing to prosecute the complaint and she has no grievance
if the crime registered against the applicant and consequential
criminal proceedings arising out of the said crime are quashed.
{3}
crappln321221.odt
5 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the
applicant and Respondent No.2 have also fled a joint compromise
pursis.
6 We have also heard learned A. P. P. for Respondent
No.1. Learned A. P. P., on the basis of instructions in writing
received from the Investigating Offcer, submits that there are no
antecedents of the applicant.
7 We have carefully gone through the contents of the
complaint and joint compromise pursis. It has been alleged in the
complaint that on 28.08.2021, Respondent No.2-informant was
informed by her friend that she has received a friend request from
her Instagram account wherein her photograph is also uploaded.
When Respondent No.2 checked the said account, she noticed that
said account is not opened by her and somebody has played
mischief with her by opening the account in her name and by
uploading her photograph. Thus, Respondent No.2 has
approached the Cyber Cell and lodged complaint. It has been
revealed during the course of the investigation that present
applicant has prepared the said profle in the name of Respondent
No.2 and also uploaded her photograph. It has also been alleged
{4}
crappln321221.odt
in the complaint that present applicant chased her on social
media.
8 The parties are well educated and both are unmarried.
Thus, considering their future careers so also their marriage
prospects, they have approached this Court for quashing of the
First Information Report and consequential criminal proceedings.
It appears that the dispute is predominantly of a private nature.
Further, there are no antecedents of the applicant. Applicant -
Akash @ Vicky s/o Ramesh Hadule is present in-person before us
and assured this Court that in future, he will not carry out similar
activities either in case of Respondent No.2 or any other girl.
Respondent No.2 Ms. Vrushali d/o Baliram Kharche is also present
before us in-person and she has no objection if the First
Information Report and consequential criminal proceedings are
quashed in terms of the settlement arrived at between them.
9 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
{5}
crappln321221.odt
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
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
{6}
crappln321221.odt
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
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
{7}
crappln321221.odt
10 Thus, considering the entire aspects of the matter and
in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforce-cited case, we proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Application No. 3212 of 2021 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause "B".
11 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
