Habib Sayyadbhai Sayyad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4640 Bom

                                      {1}
                                                           crappln157422.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1574 OF 2022

 01 Habib Sayyadbhai Sayyad,
    age: 60 years, Occ: Retired;

 02 Rabiya Habib Sayyad,
    age: 55 years, Occ: Household;

 03 Sahil s/o Habib Sayyad,
    age: 30 years, Occ: Labour;

 04 Nadeem s/o Habib Sayyad,
    age: 28 years, Occ: Labour;

      All R/o Karmaveer Nagar,
      Indirapeth, Kopargaon,
      Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar.             Applicants

          Versus

 01 The State of Maharashtra,
    through Police Station Shirdi,
    Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

 02 Saniya Sahil Sayyad,
    age: 26 years, Occ: Household,
    R/o Lalbi Manzil, Ganeshwadi,
    Govindnagar, Shirdi, Tq.Rahata,
    District Ahmednagar.                              Respondents


 Mr. M. S. Shaikh, advocate for the applicants
 Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
 Mr. A. G. Shaikh (Daruwala), advocate for Respondent No.2.


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

DATE : 02nd May, 2022.

{2} crappln157422.odt

PC :

1 By consent of learned Counsel for respective parties,

heard fnally at the stage of admission itself.

2 The applicants/accused are seeking quashing of the

First Information Report bearing Crime No. 37 of 2021, registered

with Shirdi Police Station, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also

consequential criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.148 of 2021,

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Rahata, District 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 submit that the parties have arrived

at an amicable settlement voluntarily wherein the parties have

decided to go for annulment of marriage on the ground of non

consummating the marriage and have dissolved the marriage by

executing customary divorce i.e. "Khulanama" on 21.04.2022. It

has been agreed between the parties that an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) will be paid to Respondent No.2 by

{3} crappln157422.odt

the applicants towards one time settlement. Learned Counsel for

Respondent No.2 submits that Respondent No.2 has fled consent

affdavit and accepted that she has received an amount of Rs.Two

lakhs. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that she is

not interested in prosecuting the crime.

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

State.

5 We have gone through the contents of the complaint

and compromise pursis i.e. "Khulanama". We are satisfed that the

parties have arrived at an amicable settlement voluntarily and a

care has also been taken by paying certain amount to Respondent

No.2 by way of one time settlement.

6 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

{4} crappln157422.odt

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."

7 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

{5} crappln157422.odt

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 of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of

{6} crappln157422.odt

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."

8 In view of the above discussion and in view of the ratio

laid down in the afore-cited case, we proceed to pass the following

order:

(i) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer

{7} crappln157422.odt

clause "A".

9 Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.

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

 adb