Allowed

Ritesh Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2021APL/373/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In post-marital discord matters where parties have amicably settled and filed for divorce by mutual consent, the quashing of criminal proceedings is permitted if the chance of conviction is remote. The court allowed the criminal application following the victim's consent to withdraw complaint.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No.3427/PW/2016 for offences under IPC 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 34 was quashed and the criminal application disposed of.

Ritesh Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.06 17:34:33 +0530

¶2

(15) jt-apl-373.20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2020

¶5

`1]`	`Mr. Ritesh Rajesh Kumar Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Advocate` `Aged about 31 years`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Mr. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Retired` `Aged about 72 years,`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Business` `Aged about 52 years,`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`4]`	`Smt. Rajni Rajesh Kumar Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Housewife` `Aged about 45 years,`	`]` `]` `]`
`5]`	`Miss Priya Rajesh Kumar Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Service` `Aged about 24 years,`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`6]`	`Mr. Shailesh Kumar Srivastava` `Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Occ : Advocate` `Aged about 50 years,`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
	`All residing at House No. 19, Pocket-D-11` `Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085`	`]` `]….. Applicants`
	`versus`
`1]`	`State of Maharashtra` `At the instance of Borivili Police Station` `Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Ms. Akansha Varma` `Adult 58 years, Indian Inhabitant` `Occupation – Business` `Residing at 402, Reis Magoes,`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
	`R.C.Patel Road, Borivili (West)` `Mumbai`	`]` `]…..Repondents.`

¶6

1 of 5

¶7

lgc

¶8

(15) jt-apl-373.20.odt

¶9

Mr. R Satyanarayanan for the Applicants.
Mrs. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Akansha Sharma – Respondent No.2 in person present.

¶10

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶11

DATE :06th August 2021

¶12

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

¶13

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

¶14

of the learned counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent No.2 who
appears in person.

¶15

2 This application is filed for the following relief

¶16

(a)That the present application be allowed and Criminal Case bearing No.3427/PW/2016 presently pending on the files of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 26^th Court at Borivili, Mumbai for offence under section 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 be quashed.”

¶17

3The learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the 2nd
Respondent, who appears in person, jointly submit that the applicants and the
2nd Respondent have amicably settled the dispute and applied for divorce by
mutual consent before the Family Court at Rohini, Delhi.

¶18

2 of 5

¶19

lgc

¶20

(15) jt-apl-373.20.odt

¶21

4The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court through video
conferencing. We have interacted with her. She stated that it is her voluntary
act to enter into the amicable settlement with the applicants and apply for
divorce by mutual consent. She stated that the averments made in the affidavit
are in consonance with the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.
She further stated that she has received the amount mentioned in the affidavit
and balance amount will be received at the time of disposal of divorce petition.
She stated that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings i.e. Criminal
Case bearing No.3427/PW/2016 pending on the files of Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 26th Court at Borivili, Mumbai for offences punishable under
section 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

5Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit of 2nd Respondent read as

¶23

under :-

¶24

“2 The chargesheet was filed by Borivali Police Station and said matter is pending in the court of 26^th Court Borivali Case No.3427/PW/2016.

¶25

3 I say that the above matter has been settled out of court and the applicant hereinabove has settled for a total consideration for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- to be given to the respondent out of which an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- already paid to me and the remaining amount of Rs.3,75,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- will be paid at the time of order allowing quashing of both the criminal cases as mentioned in the MOU in para No.B/3 at page No.3. I ay that the remaining amount of Rs.1,35,0-00/- will be paid by the

¶26

3 of 5

¶27

lgc

¶28

(15) jt-apl-373.20.odt

¶29

applicant to the respondent as the time of disposal of
divorce petition.

¶30

4 I record my consent for the settlement and record my no objection if I withdraw my complaint against my husband and others.”

¶31

5Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the 2nd
Respondent has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR and Criminal Case
No.3427/PW/2016, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the
further proceedings i.e. Criminal Case bearing No.3427/PW/2016 pending on
the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court at Borivili, Mumbai for
offences punishable under section 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

¶32

6The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh 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 offence 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

¶33

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

lgc

¶36

(15) jt-apl-373.20.odt

¶37

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 is
further held that, as 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.

¶38

7Since the Respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations
in the FIR, the chances of conviction of the Applicants would be remote and
bleak. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure
the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR and the Criminal Case bearing No.3427/PW/2016 pending on
the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court at Borivili, Mumbai for
offences punishable under section 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(II) r/w 34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

¶39

9In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application deserves to be
allowed and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule made
absolute in the above terms. The Criminal Application stands disposed of.

¶40

[N. J. JAMADAR, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶41

5 of 5

¶42

lgc

Ritesh Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. 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

Ravindra Kakasaheb Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Nanku Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohsin Haider Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satishkumar Omprakash Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajay S/O Shankarrao Rapatwar and Ors. S Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinesh Balu Gawale @ Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.