Allowed

Gajanan S/O. Gulabrao Bul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2018APPLN/4453/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute. While one applicant died during proceedings, the remaining applicant successfully established a prior voluntary settlement between parties. The High Court accepted the respondent's consent and applied principles from Parbatbhai Aahir to allow quashing of the FIR, holding it a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report (CR No. 9/2012) was quashed and set aside.

Gajanan S/O. Gulabrao Bul and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4453 OF 2017

¶4

1] Gajanan S/o Gulabrao Bul,
 Age : 65 Years, Occu : Retired,
 R/o Navjeevan Colony,
 Amravati Camp, Amravati,
 Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2] Dr. Nilima D/o Gajanan Bul
 (Dr. Nilima W/o Mahesh Muley)
 Age : 37 Years, Occu : Nil,
 R/o Navjeevan Colony,
 Amravati Camp, Amravati,
 Tq. & Dist. Amravati....Applicants.

¶5

 Versus

¶6

1] The State of Maharashtra
 Through Police Inspector,
 Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar.
2] Dr. Mahesh Madhavrao Muley,
 Age : 42 Years, Occu : Medical
 Practitioner,
...Respondents.
 R/o Bhagirathi Hospital,
 Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar,
 Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
----
Mr. D. G. Nagode, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. R. B. Bagul, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No. 1/ State.
Mr. K. M. Gadve Patil Adv. For respondent No. 2.
----
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
DATE : 12-04-2018.

¶7

2 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶8

JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J]

¶9

(1) Present application has been filed by
invoking the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing First Information Report lodged at the
instance of respondent No. 2.

¶10

(2) Applicant No. 1 is the father of applicant
No. 2. Applicant No. 1 was wife of respondent No. 2.
The marriage of the applicant No. 2 was performed
with respondent No. 2 as per Hindu rites on
27.12.2010. According to the applicants, the
applicant No. 2 cohabited with respondent No. 2 for

¶11

about 4 months only. The applicant No. 2 and
respondent No. 2 are residing separately since 4th

¶12

April 2011. Thereafter, various criminal and civil
cases have been instituted by them against each
other. The respondent No. 2 had filed RTC case No.
263/2012 against the present applicants as well as
four other persons contending that they have
committed offence punishable under Sections 388, 389,

¶13

417, 418, 419, 420 and 120B read with 34 of Indian

¶14

Penal Code. It appears that the matter was

¶15

3 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶16

thereafter referred for investigation under Section
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the concerned
Court and on the basis of same the FIR vide CR No.
9/2012 came to be registered with Kotwali Police
Station, Ahmednagar.

¶17

(3) During the pendency of this application,
the applicant No. 2 has expired on 25.10.2017 and her
death certificate has been produced which has been
marked as “X” for identification.

¶18

(4) It has been contended by the applicants
that they alongwith four others had filed Criminal
Appln No. 2501/2012 before this Court for quashing
FIR No. 9/2012 registered with Kotwali Police
Station. During pendency of the proceeding, this
Court referred the matter for mediation. However,
said mediation was not successful. This Court
allowed the said petition partly on 13.11.2013 and
the proceedings against the other accused persons was

¶19

quashed. As regards present applicants are
concerned, their prayer was rejected. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
applicants had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶20

4 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶21

by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.
823-824/2014. However, those petitions came to be
dismissed by order dtd. 14.2.2014. The respondent
No. 2 had filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 175/2013
before the learned District Judge, Amravati against
the judgment and order passed by learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, Amravati in Hindu Marriage petition
No. 149/2012 on 26.9.2013. The said petition was
filed for dissolution of marriage with decree of
nullity. At the same time the applicant No. 1 filed
Criminal Appln. 98/2011 under the provisions of
protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Criminal Revision Appln No. 144/2012 was also filed

¶22

by applicant No. 2 for enhancement of interim
maintenance. The learned District Judge, Amravati

¶23

had referred the matter for mediation and at that
time the mediation was successful. The applicant No.
2 and respondent No. 2 had arrived at the amicable
settlement and terms of compromise were reduced to
writing. It was one of the terms that the respondent
No. 2 will not proceed against the complaint and
would give consent for quashing FIR CR No. 9/2012.
Hence, by this petition, the applicants have prayed
for quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise.

¶24

5 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶25

(5) The compromise purshis which was filed in
Criminal Appeal No. 144/2012 before learned District
Judge, Amravati has been produced at page No. 29. A
clear stipulation has been made at para No. 5 that
the present respondent would agree to withdraw
unconditionally the criminal complaint bearing MCR
No. 9/2012 filed on 28.2.2012 and pending before
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ahmednagar.

¶26

(6) Since the applicant No. 2 has expired, the
matter is abated against her. Now, as regards the
applicant No. 1 is concerned, the respondent No. 2
has no objection to quash and set aside the first
information report. The applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 were present before this Court. The
respondent No. 2 especially has again reiterated
before this Court that he has no objection for
quashing the first information report. We find that
his consent is voluntary and therefore, we accept the
same.

¶27

(7) InParbatbhaiAahir@Parbatbhai

¶28

Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and Ors. V/s State of Gujarat
and Anr., [(2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 641] (Three

¶29

6 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶30

Judges Bench) it has been observed that “Sec. 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure is prefaced with an
overriding provision. The statute saves inherent
power of the High Court, as a Superior Court, to make
such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse
of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. In the some cases the
broad principles are emerged from the precedents i.e.
various earlier pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have been summarized which are as follows :

¶31

(1) Section 482 of CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶32

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of

¶33

the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compound an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the Court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is

¶34

7 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶35

non-compoundable.

¶36

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶37

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plentitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court.

¶38

(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶39

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot

¶40

approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly

¶41

8 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶42

speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶43

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶44

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶45

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶46

(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie

¶47

9 CriAppln No. 4453 of 2017

¶48

beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶49

(8) Therefore, taking into consideration the

¶50

ratio laid down above, we find this to be a fit case
where we should exercise our powers under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶51

Hence, following Order;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The application is allowed in terms of

¶54

prayer Clause “B”.

¶55

 (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶56

ggd/-.

Gajanan S/O. Gulabrao Bul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O. Gulabrao Bul and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajebhau Nagorao Solunke (C-4582) Open Prison, Paithan and Another Vs Sachin Ramesh Salave, Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan and Another

Parmeshwar Baburao Ghogre (C-8902) Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Manager M/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamalkishor S/O. Pusaram Bang Vs the Superintendent of Police, Jalna and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balaji Basuraj Kamthane

Trupti W/O. Bharat Wani @ Trupti D/O. Rajhans Gulve and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra