Deepak Shankarrao Sase And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 7 appln 446-22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2022 WITH APPLN/2229/2020 BHALCHANDRA SHANKARRAO SASE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Deshmukh Sachin S. APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. S. S. Dande ....

CORAM :

V. K. JADHAV AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 28th MARCH, 2022.

....

P. C. :

1.

Leave add case number in prayer clause "A" of Criminal Application No. 2229 of 2020.

2.

Heard fnally with consent of the parties at admission stage. 3.

The applicants in both the matters are seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No. 994 of 2020, registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of IPC and consequentialproceedings bearing RCC NO. 107 of 2021, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

2 7 appln 446-22 4.

Learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 in both the matters, submit that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and fled joint settlement pursis to that effect below Exhibit-20 in Special Marriage Petition No. 5 of 2020 before District Judge-4, Ahmednagar, wherein the parties have decided to go for annulment of the marriage on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage. Learned counsel submit that respondent no.2 has fled pursis to that effect. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has also pointed out to us that the copy of the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Ahmednagar is also annexed with the application bearing Criminal Application No. 446 of 2022 Exhibit-B Page 16.

5.

We have also heard the learned APP for the respondent-State. 6.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint. We also perused the pursis fled respondent no.2. It appears that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. The applicant husband ( applicant in Criminal Application No.446 of 2022 herein) has fled petition bearing No. 5 of 2020 before District Judge No. 4, Ahmednagar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Special Marriage Act for declaration that the marriage of the applicant (in

3 7 appln 446-22 Criminal Application No. 446 of 2022) with respondent no.2 herein solemnized on 14/10/2019 as null and void.

7.

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. The fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, has framed the guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh 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."

8.

In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the 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

4 7 appln 446-22 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. : (1) 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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.

5 7 appln 446-22 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 the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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.

In other words, the High Court must 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 9.

We are satisfed that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Respondent no.2 has also fled pursis to that effect. Further the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge

6 7 appln 446-22 No.4, Ahmednagar in Special Marriage Petition No. 5 of 2020 is also placed before us.

10.

In view of above above and in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited case, we proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

I) Criminal Application No.446 of 2022 is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A" and disposed of accordingly.

I) Criminal Application No.2229 of 2020 is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A" and disposed of accordingly.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) vsm/-