Bombay High Court
Kiran S/O. Suresh Jundare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 December, 2021
Author: V.K. Jadhav
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 criwp 599.2019+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
70 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.599 OF 2019
KIRAN S/O. SURESH JUNDARE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Petitioners :Mr. Kakde Yuvraj V.
APP for Respondents: Mr. K S Patil
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. B.B. Shelke And T.V.
Bedre
...
AND
73 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1444 OF 2020
KIRAN S/O. SURESH JUNDARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kakde Yuvraj V.
APP for Respondents: Mr. K S Patil
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Bedre V S
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Dated: December 06, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. Leave to add RCC number in prayer clause in both
the writ petitions. Addition be carried out forthwith.
2. Heard fnally with the consent of parties at
admission stage.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
2 criwp 599.2019+.odt
3. In criminal writ petition no.599 of 2019, the
applicants/original accused are seeking quashing of the
FIR bearing crime No.59 of 2019 registered with Rahuri
Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also
seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing
RCC No.131 of 2021 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rahuri, on settlement.
4. In criminal writ petition no.1444 of 2020, the
applicant/original accused is seeking quashing of the
FIR bearing crime No.850 of 2019 registered with Rahuri
Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 509, 507 of
the Indian Penal Code and also seeking quashing of the
criminal proceeding bearing RCC No.351 of 2021
pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rahuri, on settlement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and
respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived at
an amicable settlement and respondent no.2/informant
has also fled her affdavit to that effect. Petitioner No.1
Kiran and respondent no.2 Ashwini have fled the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
3 criwp 599.2019+.odt
petition for a decree of divorce by mutual consent and
the Court has passed a decree of divorce with the
consent of the parties on 29.6.2020 in HMP No.31 of
2020. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits
that it has been agreed between the parties that
petitioner Kiran will pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rs. One lac Fifty Thousand) to respondent no.2 towards
permanent alimony. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 submits that respondent no.2 has fled affdavit to
the extent of settlement between them and in terms of
compromise she has also been paid an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent alimony.
6. We have also heard the learned APP for the
respondent State.
7. It appears that the parties have arrived at an
amicable settlement and in terms of the settlement
between the petitioner Kiran and respondent no.2-
informant, parties have obtained a decree of divorce by
fling a joint petition bearing HMP No.31 of 2020 before
the Civil Court. It also appears that the care has also
been taken to pay certain amount to respondent no.2
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
4 criwp 599.2019+.odt
towards permanent alimony. We are thus satisfed that
the parties have arrived at amicable settlement,
voluntarily and they have decided to end the litigations
between them.
8. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme
Court in paragraph no.48 has quoted para 21 of the
judgment of the Five-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. .....
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
5 criwp 599.2019+.odt
(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
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
6 criwp 599.2019+.odt
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. 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 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.
9. In view of the above discussion and in terms of the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::
7 criwp 599.2019+.odt
Gian Singh (supra), we proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Criminal writ petition no.599 of 2019 (Kiran Suresh Jundare and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) and Criminal Writ Petition No.1444 of 2020 (Kiran s/o Suresh Jundare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) are hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.
ii. Both the criminal writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2021 00:03:06 :::