APL/530/2020 of MANESH BRIJLAL SHAH AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. on 31 December 2020

(6) cri.apl-530.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.530 OF 2020

Manesh Brijlal Shah & ors.Versus

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

: Applicants.

: Respondents.

Mr. Hitesh P Shah for the Applicants.Mr. P P Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.Mrs. Khushbu Pratik Shah – Respondent No.2 present.Mr.Nitin Phulpagare, PSI of Bhayander Police Station present.

P.C.

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,

ABHAY AHUJA, JJ(VACATION COURT)DATE :31[st] DECEMBER 2020

1By this Criminal Application filed under Section 482 of theCriminal Procedure Code 1973 the Applicants are seeking directions forquashing of FIR No.683/2020 dated 05/12/2020 under Sections 498-A, 406,504, 506 of IPC registered at Bhayander Police Station, District Thane on thebasis of Compromise arrived at between the Applicants and the 2[nd]Respondent.

2Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that theparties have amicably settled the dispute.

3The 2[nd] Respondent Mrs. Khusbhu Pratik Shah is personallypresent before this Court. She is identified by the learned counsel appearing for

3

the Applicants and the PSI Mr.Nitin Phulpagare, who is attached to BhayanderPolice Station. On interaction with Respondent No.2, she has stated that shehas voluntarily, out of her free will, without any coercion and without undueinfluence agreed for the compromise. She has further stated that she has noobjection for quashing the FIR lodged against the Applicants by her, and hasalso filed the affidavit which is annexed to the Application at Page 14.

4The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh v. State of Punjaband Another1 has held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly andpredominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes ofquashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arisingout of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where thewrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolvedtheir entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash thecriminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between theoffender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak andcontinuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppressionand prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashingthe criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise withthe victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with nostatutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline12012 (10) SCC 303

engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to preventabuse of the process of any court.

5Since the Applicants and Respondent No.2 have amicably settledthe dispute, we are inclined to allow this Application as Respondent No.2 is notgoing to support the allegations made in the impugned FIR and chance ofconviction of the Applicants would be bleak, and therefore, continuation offurther proceedings arising out of the said FIR, would be an exercise in futilityand would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

6In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and toprevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Application deserves to beallowed, and the said FIR is required to be quashed. Accordingly theApplication is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Application standsdisposed of with no order as to costs.

7This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of thisCourt. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitallysigned copy of this order.

[ABHAY AHUJA, J]

[S. S. SHINDE , J]