ANIL BHANUDAS NIBE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case Details
1 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 91 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1889 OF 2021 ANIL BHANUDAS NIBE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Narwade Narayan B. APP for Respondents : Mr. S S Dande Advocate for Respondent 2 : Ms. Kulkarni Ashlesha A ... AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 2021 PRIYANKA W/O MAHESHKUMAR JANGALE @ PRIYANKA MAHESH JANGALE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. ... Mr. R A Tambe advocate for petitioners. Mr. S S Dande APP for respondent no.1 State. Advocate for Respondent 2 : Ms. Kulkarni Ashlesha A (appointed in both matters) ... CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. Dated: March 21, 2022 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard fnally with consent at admission staee. 2. The applicant/maternal uncle of respondent no.2 in criminal application no.1889 of 2021 and the petitioners in criminal writ petition no.974 of 2021 aaa/- 2 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt (sister in law and husband of sister in law of respondent
Legal Reasoning
no.2) are seekine quashine of the FIR bearine Crime No.443 of 2021 reeistered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednaear for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC on the eround that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that as per the interim order passed by this Court, charee-sheet has not been submitted aeainst the applicant and the petitioners. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel appearine for the applicant in criminal application, also in the writ petition and the learned counsel appearine for respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and in terms of the said settlement, co-accused/husband and respondent no.2 have fled a joint application for a decree of divorce in terms of the provisions of section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriaee Act, 1955. The co- accused husband has aereed to pay respondent no.2 permanent lifetime alimony of Rs.27.5 lacs and as such, aaa/- 3 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt the respondent no.2 has eiven up all her riehts of maintenance. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 has fled affdavit-in-reply in the criminal application and writ petition to that effect. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that, respondent no.2 has received half of the amount i.e. 13.75 lacs throueh two cheques for an amount of Rs.6.75 (RTGS) and Rs.7.00 lacs (direct deposit in the bank account of respondent no.2). Remainine amount is aereed to be paid at the time of closine affdavit of evidence in the said divorce petition. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2 thus do not want to proceed with the present complaint. 5. We have also heard the learned APP for respondent State. 6. We have carefully eone throueh the contents of the complaint and also the police papers. It is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have arrived at amicable settlement. Further, co-accused husband and respondent no.2 have fled joint petition for a decree of aaa/- 4 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt divorce in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriaee Act, 1955 vide PF No.66 of 2022 which is pendine before the Family Court, Ahmednaear. 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 judement of the fve-Judee Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Hieh Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769. A fve-Judee Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Hieh Court, in para 21 of the judement, by placine reliance on the various judements of the Supreme court, has framed the euidelines for quashine of the criminal proceedine on the eround of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh’s judement is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the judement in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant for the present discussion reads as under :- “21. (a) Cases arisine from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aeeravation of the case.” aaa/- 5 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt The Supreme Court in paraeraph no.61 of the judement of Gian Sineh (supra) has made followine observations :- “61. The position that emerees from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the Hieh Court in quashine a criminal proceedine or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power eiven to a criminal court for compoundine 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 euideline enerafted 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 proceedine 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 cateeory can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the Hieh Court must have due reeard to the nature and eravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fttinely quashed even thoueh 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 workine in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashine criminal proceedines involvine such offences. But the criminal cases havine overwhelminely and predominatinely civil favour aaa/- 6 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt stand on different footine for the purposes of quashine, particularly the offences arisine from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arisine out of matrimony relatine to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrone is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this cateeory of cases, Hieh Court may quash criminal proceedines 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 ereat oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashine the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the Hieh Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedine or continuation of the criminal proceedine would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wronedoer 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 Hieh Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedine. 8. It appears that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement and decided to end their relations permanently. They have already approached the Family Court, Ahmednaear by fline a petition for decree of divorce by mutual consent in terms of the provisions of aaa/- 7 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriaee Act, 1955. It further appears that care has also been taken to erant permanent alimony to the respondent no.2. We are thus satisfed that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement, voluntarily. 9.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Sineh (supra), we proceed to pass the followine order. O R D E R i. Criminal application no.1889 of 2021 (Anil Bhanudas Nibe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) and Criminal Writ Petition No.974 of 2021 (Priyanka w/o Maheshkumar Janeale @ Priyanka Mahesh Janeale and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) are hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’’ ii. Criminal application and criminal writ petition accordinely disposed off. iii. Since Advocate Ms. A.A. Kulkarni is appointed to represent the cause of respondent no.2 in both the matters, we quantify her leeal fees and aaa/- 8 cran 1889.21+wp 974.21.odt expenses @ Rs.2,000/- each (i.e. Rs.4,000/-) to be paid by the Hieh Court Leeal Services Sub-Committee, Auraneabad. ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) … aaa/-