Neel Ashok Jain And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2015 Neel Ashok Jain.

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Ms. Yogini D. Ghawale for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. A. Pande for Respondent No. 2.

Mr. P. H. Kantharia, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

Date : June 24, 2015.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petition is for quashing CR/FIR No. 121 of 2015 registered with L.T.Marg Police Station against the Petitioners at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2.

Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2. Rest of the Petitioners are the family members of Petitioner No.1. The present complaint came to be registered in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation, with the help and 1 / 4

intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, present petition is filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No.2.

4.

Respondent No.2 has filed sworn an affidavit dated 24th June 2015, wherein she has stated that she is not interested in continuing with the criminal prosecution of the Petitioners as per FIR No. 121 of 2015. She has solemnly affirmed that she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioners in the said FIR and that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings of the said FIR. 5.

Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said 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 FIR in question filed by her against the Petitioners. 6.

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: 2 / 4

"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 non-exercise 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."

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. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. 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. 3 / 4

State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the FIR in question. Accordingly, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 4 / 4