Allowed

Umang Shekhar Thakker and Ors. v. the State of Maharashstra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2021APL/103/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A IPC. Relying on Section 482 CrPC and learned counsel's joint submission of an amicable settlement in the Family Court, the Court held that the case had a preponderance of civil flavour and continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application bearing C.C.No.522/PW/2018 was quashed and set aside; the rule was made absolute.

Umang Shekhar Thakker and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/5 501 APL-103-21 (OJ).doc

¶2

Mandira Salgaonkar

¶3

Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.13 01:40:20 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2021

¶7

1.Umang Shekher Thakker]
]
2.Shekhar Thakker]
]
3.Mrs.Nirmala Shekhar Thakker]
All residing at Plot No.17A, Jamnotri Society,]
Near Khodiyar Mata Temple, Navi Anjar,]
P.O. Anjar, District : Kahchh,]
Gujarat – 370110]..Applicants
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra]
(Through Mulund (W) Police Station)]
]
2.Mrs.Ekta Umang Thakker]
Residing at 203, Shree Siddhi Apartment,]
Behind Bal Rajeshwar Temple, LBS Marg,]
Mulund (W), Mumbai -80]..Respondents
…

¶8

Ms.Shikhani Shah i/b Mr.S.R.Gaud for the Applicants.

¶9

Mr.Wilson K. Jaiswal for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶11

Respondent No.2 present in Court.

¶12

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶13

 DATED : 11th MARCH, 2021

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT:-(PER S.S.SHINDE, J)

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

¶16

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶17

2/5 501 APL-103-21 (OJ).doc

¶18

2.Learned counsel appearing for the applicants and respondent
No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute
and to that effect, consent terms are filed in the Family Court at
Bandra.

¶19

3.Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has tendered
across the bar, the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2.
Same is taken on record. Para 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:-

¶20

“3. I say that, due to intervention of elder family and
community members, I have settled my matrimonial dispute
with all the Applicants and accordingly on 06.02.2021 consent
terms came to be executed between me and Applicant No.1,
some of relevant settlement terms as enumerated in such
written consent terms are as under;

¶21

i) In view of the consent terms filed before the Family Court,
Bandra, Mumbai, I am willing to settle my dispute with the
Applicants and thereby willing to record my free consent to
quash the criminal proceedings i.e. present subject FIR, as
mentioned above, against all the Applicants.

¶22

ii) That, Applicant No.1 would co-operate to seek the decree
of divorce from the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, which is
already pending before the Family Court by recording his
appearance and consent before the Family Court in Petition
No.F/1312/2021.

¶23

iii) That, I will receive from the Applicant No.1 a lump-sum
of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) as a full and
final one-time settlement amount, through a Demand
Draft/Electronic Fund Transfer in my name, which is to be
paid one week prior to the passing of divorce decree by the
Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

¶24

iv) I say that in view of settlement terms, I had already
withdrawn the Domestic Violence proceedings filed before the
27th Court of Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate at Mulund, Mumbai
bearing its C.C.No.84/DV/2018 on 12.02.2021 and therefore I

¶25

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶26

3/5 501 APL-103-21 (OJ).doc

¶27

would not claim any maintenance and/or alimony etc. from
Applicant No.1 in future by initiating any kind of proceedings.

¶28

v) After quashing of the present proceedings and obtaining
the decree of divorce none of the parties would cause any
interference in lives of each other and all the parties would be
at liberty to lead their respective lives as per their desire.

¶29

vi) Applicants and Respondent No.2 would not seek any
right and interest over the moveable and/or immovable
properties and also not file any civil and/or criminal
proceedings against each other.”

¶30

4.In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is stated that respondent
No.2 is giving consent for quashing the proceedings i.e. C.C.No.522/
PW/2018, pending on the file of 27th Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate at Mulund, Mumbai arising out of F.I.R.bearing its
C.R.No.159 of 2018 dated 20.04.2018 for offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. registered with
Mulund (W) Police Station.

¶31

5.Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated that
it is her voluntary act to enter into the settlement and file the
consent terms before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and give
consent for quashing the proceeding, which is under challenge in
this petition. The parties are identified by their respective counsels.

¶32

6.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of

¶33

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶34

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶35

4/5 501 APL-103-21 (OJ).doc

¶36

matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court.

¶37

7.Since respondent No.2 has consented for quashing the
aforesaid proceeding, continuation of such proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of the concerned Court. Respondent
No.2 would not participate in the said proceeding and chances of
conviction of the applicants will be remote and bleak.

¶38

8.In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and
to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process
of the concerned court, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶39

9.The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (b), which reads as under :-

¶40

“b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside
the criminal proceeding bearing its C.C.No.522/PW/2018
pending before the 27th Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate

¶41

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶42

5/5 501 APL-103-21 (OJ).doc

¶43

at Mulund, Mumbai arising out its C.R.No.159 of 2018 and
FIR lodged with the Mulund (W) Police Station dated
20.04.2018 for an offence punishable u/s 498(A), 323, 406,
504, 506 r/w 34 OF I.P.C. against all the Applicants above-
named, lodged at the instance of present Respondent No.2 by
exercising its inherent power as provided under section 482 of
the code of criminal procedure.”

¶44

10.The criminal application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

11.The parties shall extend full co-operation to the Family Court,
Bandra, Mumbai for early disposal of the proceeding pending before
the said Court. Both the parties shall attend the hearing before the
Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on the dates fixed, without any
default. The parties shall strictly abide by the consent terms and any
breach thereof would entail recalling of the order passed today.

¶46

 (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶47

M.M.Salgaonkar

Umang Shekhar Thakker and Ors. v. the State of Maharashstra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umang Shekhar Thakker and Ors. v. the State of Maharashstra 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

Arujn Debashish Mukherjee and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kanhayalal T. Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagdish Ramnivas Sarda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raskin Pinakin Engineer and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Dnyaneshwar Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajay Mukund Vishwkarma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.