This court quashed criminal proceedings regarding a matrimonial dispute after an amicable settlement was reached between the parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents on quashing criminal FIRs for settlement.
C.R. No. 206 of 2006 at Vakola Police Station and related proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 cr-apln-76-10
jdk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.APPLIN. NO. 76 OF 2010
Jaspal Harjinder Singh Katorora and Ors.
..Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Smt. Geeta Tripathi i/b K.H.Giri Adv. for Applicants Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State Mr. J.S.Chandani Adv. for respondent no.2
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2010
P.C. :
1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original
accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant is present in person.
2 cr-apln-76-10
2 The respondent no.2 was married to the applicant no.1. Some matrimonial dispute arose between them, hence, FIR i.e. CR No. 206 of 2006 came to be lodged by respondent no.2 at Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 498-A and 406 r.w. 34 of IPC. The applicant is seeking quashing of the said CR and the proceedings relating thereto.
3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the respondent no.2 and the applicant and in order to maintain amicable relations and peace among all family members, the FIR be quashed.
4 In a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is observed as follows:
"We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the
3 cr-apln-76-10
prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly ovberburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law".
In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed.
5 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977 Cr.L.J. 1125 the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
4 cr-apln-76-10
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
6 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459 , it was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers.
7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings.
8 C.R.No. 206 of 2006 of Vakola. Police Station Mumbai and
the proceedings relating thereto, is quashed.
9 Application disposed of.
[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC can be quashed in matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement.
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR to maintain family peace.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶19
AIR 2008 SC 1969 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors.Explained¶24
1977 Cr.L.J. 1125
Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and othersRelied on¶27
2006 Cri.L.J. 459 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaspal Harjinder Singh Katorora and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra
Anonymous (Respondent no.2)
V.K. Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
