Dr Aditi Pramod Bhor v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2202 OF 2015 Dr. Tushar P, Rane ..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2015 Dr. Aditi Bhor ..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2203 OF 2015 Dr. Pradeep Rane & Anr.

..Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents Mr. J.S.Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners. Mrs.U.V.kejriwal, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Sachin Chandan for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 10, 2015.

P.C.

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned App for the

State. The above writ petitions are filed by the husband, sister-in-law, father-in-law and the mother in law of the respondent no.2- complainant for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R.No. 62 of 2015 registered with Kanjurmarg Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

The original complainant-respondent no.2 in above petition and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2202 of 2015 were married on 21.12.2011. Matrimonial dispute between the parties led to filing civil as well as criminal proceedings. The subject FIR is one of them. Pending investigation parties settled their dispute amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the subject FIR by consent. 3.

The respondent no.2, original complainant has filed separate affidavit in the aforesaid petitions. In para 2 of each of the affidavits she has given no objection to quash the proceeding of the subject F.I.R. 4.

Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said statement in the affidavit on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings in question initiated by her against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 498Ar/w. 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5.

The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though, the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:

"14.

There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that nonexercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 6.

Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft

46].

7.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. 8.

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings. 9.

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)