Amit Baburao Rane And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2793 OF 2017 Amit Baburao Rane and Others.

..Petitioners.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Mr. Mayur Faria i/b Mr. R. M. Agrawal for the Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.

Mrs. Sujata Rane Respondent No. 2 in-person present. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : July 19, 2017.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. We also heard Respondent No. 2 who is appearing in person.

2.

The petition is filed for quashing FIR bearing CR No. 494 of 2016 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with 34 of IPC. The said FIR is registered at the instance of Respondent No. 2 herein. 3.

Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are the husband and wife. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1. The matrimonial disputes between the parties led to the filing of subject FIR.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and 1 / 4

Mrs. Rane Respondent No.2 who is appearing in person submitted that pending investigation with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the subject FIR by consent.

5.

Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 14th July 2017 and given consent for quashing of the subject FIR. 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 initiated 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: "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 2 / 4

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. 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 subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

8.

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court 3 / 4

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 subject FIR. In that view of the matter, writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 4 / 4