Ashok Kumar Babarai Sharma And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4066 OF 2018 Mr. Ashok Kumar Babarai Sharma & Ors.

.. Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Bandra (East), Mumbai & Anr.

.. Respondents Mr.R.S. Bhandary for petitioner.

Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP for State.

Mr.Ravi Dwivedi for respondent No.2.

Mrs.Rekha Ashok Sharma-respondent No.2 is present in Court. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2018 P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 and the leaned APP.

Petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R.No.419 of 2016, dated 14th June 2016 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Bandra (East), Mumbai at the instance of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1866.

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are relatives of petitioner No.1. Matrimonial 1/3

disputes arose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 which lead to filing of various proceedings and the subject matter of the present petition is one of them.

The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, parties have amicably settled their disputes between them and they have started staying together. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, thereafter, decided to approach this Court for quashing the subject FIR.

In view of above, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit affirmed on 11th September 2018. In paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit, she has stated that she has given her no objection for quashing the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has given consent voluntarily and without being under any coercion or pressure or undue influence. The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 1 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 AIR 2003 SC 1368 2/3

Court contained in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said judgement and the same are reproduced hereinbelow :- "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.

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 Maharashtra2. In the light of the above settled position of law and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are inclined to quash the FIR of subject crime. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and accordingly disposed.

(SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) 2008(5) LJ.Soft 461 3/3