This is a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR for offences including rape on the grounds of a mutual settlement. The court found that the parties subsequently married and are living together, negating the allegation of rape, and allowed the quashing of the FIR.
Writ petition made absolute to quash FIR No. 812 of 2018.
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.
wp-586/19.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2019
Ganesh D. Gawade Patil. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.
Mr. Naveen Sharma i/b P. J. Pardeshi for the Petitioner. Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Smt. Meenakshi S. Saxena Respondent No. 2.
Coram : RANJIT MORE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. Date : August 13, 2019 .
P. C. :
1 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
arrived at between them, the present petition is filed for quashing the subject FIR, by consent of Respondent No.2 (first informant in the said FIR).
“2. I state that I was always interested to do marriage with the Petitioner hence when the Petitioner did not agree to do the marriage, due to anger and short temper, I filed the complaint againt the Petitioner as he he was noty ready to do the marriage.
2 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
Police Station, Pune.
. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the FIR in question initiated by her against the Petitioner.
3 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
“28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.”
. The decision of the Apex Court, thus, makes it clear that the Court cannot decline to quash the FIR merely because FIR incorporates a particular provision which is a serious offence or an offence against the society. The Court has to endeavour to find out whether the FIR indeed discloses ingredients of such offence and that the Court can accept the settlement and quash the FIR / Charge-sheet if the Court is of the opinion that such an
4 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
offence is unnecessarily incorporated in the charge-sheet.
5 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
and the said marriage is dissolved by the grant of decree of divorce dated 1st October 2018 under the provisions of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granted by the Family Court at Pune in P. A. No. 793 of 2017.
6 / 7
patilsr
wp-586/19.
purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
7 / 7
patilsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR involving a serious offence under Section 376 IPC upon settlement between parties.
Whether ingredients of rape are made out in the facts of this case given the parties married and live together.
Whether the purpose of litigation would be defeated by continuing the prosecution after the parties have reconciled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶24
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Ganesh D. Gawade Patil
State of Maharashtra
Meenakshi Haribhau Shinde
RANJIT MORE
N. J. JAMADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
