Vaishali Ganesh Ahire And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date:
2023.12.02 17:22:13 +0500 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 893 OF 2023 1.
Vaishali Ganesh Ahire 2.
Sanjana Sanjay Pawar 3.
Sarika Santosh Jambhale 4.
Nilesh Shridhar Dhavde 5.
Shailesh Shridhar Dhavde 6.
Sushma Shridhar Dhavde 7.
Rajesh Sadashiv Humane 8.
Ganesh Janardhan Raut 9.
Manoj Santosh Jambhale
...Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra 2.
Deepika Vijay Gurav
...Respondents
Ms Supriya Kadam for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Sudeep Singh for Respondent No.2.
CORAM
:
NITIN W. SAMBRE & N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE :
31 OCTOBER, 2023.
PC:- 1.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is fled to quash the First Information Report No. 522 of 2022 dated 19 May 2022 registered at Powai Police Station, Mumbai against the petitioners for the ofences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
1/5
2.
The aforesaid crime came to be registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.2/complainant. The allegations against the petitioners inter alia are of assault and outraging the modesty of sister of respondent No.2. 3.
The quashing of FIR is sought on the ground that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties and respondent No.2 is no longer desirous of prosecuting the case in question.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. It is submitted that both the parties are residing in the same vicinity. It is submitted that there is cross - FIR and both the FIRs were lodged in heat of passion. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, this Court has already quashed the crossFIR. It is thus, submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive. It is submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.1.
5.
The respondent No.2, who is identifed by her Advocate Mr. Sundeep Singh, is personally present in the Court. She confrms about the settlement arrived at with the petitioners and the contents of the consent afdavit dated 24 January (2014) 6 SCC 466 2/5
2023 fled by her, wherein she has stated that she has no objection if the criminal case in question against the petitioners is quashed.
6.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra) has held :
" 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the ofences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is fled, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious 3/5
ofences of mental depravity or ofences liee murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such ofences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for ofences alleged to have been committed under special statute liee the Prevention of Corruption Act or the ofences committed by public servants while woreing in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the ofender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleae and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
7.
It appears that both the parties residing in the same vicinity. There appears to be no previous enmity between the parties. In view of the settlement, the respondent No.2 is not going to support the prosecution case and therefore, possibility of conviction of petitioners is remote and bleak. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, in our view, the Petition deserves to be allowed. The Petition is thus allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- by each petitioner to the the Pasaydan Balvikas Foundation bearing Account No. 3775403155, Central Bank of India, IFSC Code No.CBIN0285070" within ten weeks from today and the receipt of payment of cost shall be produced with 4/5
the Registry, failing which the order of quashing the criminal proceedings shall stand recalled.
8.
Writ Petition is disposed of.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) 5/5