Manish Sainath Mundhe And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 975 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.343 OF 2021 MANISH SAINATH MUNDHE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Biradar R.D.
APP for Respondents : Mr. S D Ghayal Advocate for Respondent 3:Mr. R G Nirmal h/f Y D. Kale ...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. Dated: April 29, 2022 ...
PER COURT :- 1.
Leave to insert the RCC number and name of the Court in the prayer clause 'B'. Insertion be carried out forthwith.
2.
The applicants/original accused are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing crime no.119 of 2020 registered with Gevrai Police Station, District Beed for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 420, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also consequential proceedings by way of RCC No.328 of 2020 on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. The parties have settled the dispute voluntarily in the Lok Adalat held on 11.12.2021 in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent no.3. It is agreed between the parties that the applicant no.1 husband to give an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent no.3/informant towards her permanent maintenance. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.3-wife has received the entire amount and she has also fled consent affdavit to that effect.
4.
We have also heard the learned APP for respondent State.
5.
In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court in para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of the fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
(2007) 4 CTC 769. A fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by placing reliance on the various judgments of the Supreme court, has framed the guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant for the present discussion reads as under :- "21.
(a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case."
The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the judgment of Gian Singh (supra) has made following observations :- "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fttingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
6.
We are satisfed that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and care has also been taken about future maintenance of respondent no.3. In view of the above discussion and in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
i.
Criminal application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.
ii.
Criminal application accordingly disposed off. ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...