Allowed

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2021APL/204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appellate jurisdiction application sought quashing of proceedings against the applicant based on a settlement with the accuser. The High Court allowed the application, quashing the FIR and court proceedings concerning the applicant to secure justice and prevent abuse of process, while reserving action against a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.924 of 2020 and C.C.No.450/PW/2021 are quashed qua the applicant Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole; the rule is made absolute.

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Mandira Salgaonkar Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.05 21:35:09 +0530

¶2

1/4 Judgment APL-204-21.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2021

¶6

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole]
Residing at Room No.7, Ganesh Mitra ]
Mandal, Ganesh Niwas, Devipada, Near]
Shankar Mandir, Borivali (East), ]
Mumbai- 400 066].. Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra]
through Kasturba Marg Police Station,]
Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066]
]
2. Mrs.Sheetal @ Sunita Sanjay Raul]
Maurya Niwas Chawl, Near ]
Omkareshwar Mandir, Devipada, ]
Borivali (East), Mumbai -400066]
]
3. Mr.Vishal Keshav Chavan]
Room No.6, Ganesh Mitra Mandal,]
Ganesh Niwas, Devipada, Borivali ]
(East), Mumbai - 400066].. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Vaibhav V. Birmole- Applicant in person.

¶10

Mrs.Racheeta Dhuru- Appointed Advocate for
Respondent No.2.

¶11

Respondent No.2 present.

¶12

Mrs.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.

¶13

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
 MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED: 01st MARCH, 2021

¶14

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶15

2/4 Judgment APL-204-21.doc

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

2.The applicant appears in person. By order dated 25th
February, 2021, Advocate Racheeta Dhuru was appointed to
represent respondent No.2. Today, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, has tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent
No.2. Same is taken on record.

¶19

3.It is submitted by the applicant and learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 that the applicant and respondent No.2 have
amicably settled the dispute. It is stated in the affidavit that
respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing the First Information
Report (FIR) and C.C.No.450/PW/2021 pending before the
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai,
qua the applicant. It is stated in the affidavit that the family of the
applicant and respondent No.2 are residing in the same locality and
in order to maintain peace, respondent No.2 and the applicant have
decided to settle the dispute. In view of the said settlement,
respondent No.2 has decided to withdraw all allegations against the
applicant- Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole.

¶20

4.Respondent No.2 is present before this Court. She has been
identified by her counsel. She has stated that it is her voluntary act
to enter into such settlement. There is no force or coercion and she
has entered into such settlement with her free will. She has stated
that she has no objection for quashing the FIR and and C.C.No.450/
PW/2021 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶21

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶22

3/4 Judgment APL-204-21.doc

¶23

68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai against the present applicant, however,
she wishes to pursue the allegations against the co-accused, namely,
Vishal Keshav Chavan.

¶24

5.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
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.

¶25

6.Since respondent No.2 has volunteered to settle the dispute
with the applicant, she is not going to support the allegations in the
FIR, qua the applicant and further continuation of the proceedings

¶26

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶27

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶28

4/4 Judgment APL-204-21.doc

¶29

would be an exercise in futility and the chances of conviction of the
applicant would be bleak and remote.

¶30

7.In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the application
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, FIR No.924 of 2020 registered
at Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Sections 452, 324, 509, 506, 504 read with
Section 34 of the India Penal Code and C.C.No.450/PW/2021
pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court,
Borivali, Mumbai are quashed qua the applicant-Vaibhav Vishnu
Birmole.

¶31

8.Rule is made absolute in above terms and the criminal
application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

9.However, the Investigating Officer can proceed against
respondent No.3-Vishal Keshav Chavan.

¶33

10.We appreciate the sincere efforts taken by Mrs.Racheeta
Dhuru, learned appointed advocate for respondent No.2 and we
quantify her fees at Rs.7,500/-.

¶34

11.The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai is directed
to pay the said amount to the appointed advocate Mrs.Dhuru within
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶35

 (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶36

 (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶37

M.M.Salgaonkar

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Paritosh Akhilesh Chaube and Ors. Vs Ashmi Paritosh Chaube and Anr.

Jagdish S/O. Sonaji Palodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Sampat Pawar @ Neel Pawar Vs Pooja Surendra Chopra and Anr.

Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lahoriya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.