Allowed

Himanshu Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2021WP/1010/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition for quashing an FIR and chargesheet under various IPC sections. The court noted an amicable settlement mediated by the Family Court with a willing respondent, deeming the criminal case to have a remote chance of conviction and fitting the category of matrimonial disputes requiring quashing.

What did the court decide?

The chargesheet and FIR for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC were quashed.

Himanshu Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath 1 / 5 20-CRWP-1010-2020.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.01.15
12:09:00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2020
1. Himanshu Sharma
Aged 38 Years.
2. Mr. Kuldeep Chand Sharma
Aged 71 Years.
3. Mrs. Kusum Kuldeep Chand Sharma
Aged 65 Years.
4. Mrs. Aditi Kuldeep Chand Sharma
Aged 33 Years.
All R/o. H-503, Building No. 11,
CHS Neelam Nagar-2 Mulund East,
Mumbai 400081. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Senior Inspector
Navghar Police Station, Mulund East,
Mumbai 400081 Maharashtra.
2. Mrs. Ripti Sharma D/o Vijay Kumar
Currently residing at
L & T CHS Ltd., 19/4 Marol
Andheri East, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Jitesh Alva i/b. Ms. Mukta Thapar for Petitioners.
Mr. Akram Kapoor for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.
Mrs. Ripti Sharma Respondent No. 2 Present.
…

¶2

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &

¶3

MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶4

DATE : JANUARY 14, 2021.

¶5

Bhagyawant Punde

¶6

20-CRWP-1010-2020.doc

¶7

2 / 5

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶9

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

¶10

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶11

This petition is filed with following substantive prayer:-

¶12

It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Chargesheet No. 624/PW/2016, FIR No. 38/2016, U/s. 498A, 406, 354, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. P.S. Navghar, Mulund West, Mumbai, in the interest of justice.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute before the Family Court and to that effect the consent terms which are arrived at between the parties have been placed on record. It is further submitted that the parties will strictly abide by the consent terms.

¶14

The parties are identified by their respective advocates. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has tendered across the bar the affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.2, the same is taken on record. In the said affidavit in Paragraphs 3 and 4 it is stated thus:-

¶15

Bhagyawant Punde

¶16

20-CRWP-1010-2020.doc

¶17

3 / 5

¶18

I further say that, upon intervention of the Councilors at Family Court, At Bandra, Mumbai, in M.J. Petition No. A-980/2019, the matter between myself and the Petitioners has been amicably settled vide Consent Terms dated 17/01/2020, and therefore I have no grudges or grievances against the Petitioners nor do I wish to proceed further in C.C. No. 624/PW/2016 in C.R. No. 38 of 2016 lodged with Navghar Police Station, pending on the file of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund Court, Mumbai.

¶19

In view of the settlement arrived at in the present case with the Petitioners I hereby give my consent for quashing of C.C. No. 624/PW/2016 in C.R. No. 38 of 2016 for the offences u/s. 498(A), 406, 354, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, lodged with Navgthar Police Station, pending on the file of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund Court, Mumbai. Accordingly the present petition filed by the Petitioners may be allowed and disposed off accordingly.

¶20

The Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. She stated

¶21

that it is her voluntary act to enter into such settlement and give consent for quashing the FIR and impugned charge sheet.

¶22

It is crystal clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR and the chances of conviction of Petitioners would be remote and bleak.

¶23

Bhagyawant Punde

¶24

20-CRWP-1010-2020.doc

¶25

4 / 5

¶26

The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab

¶27

and Another 1 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 resolves 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 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.

¶28

In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Chargesheet No. 624/PW/2016 and FIR No. 38 of 2016 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶29

Bhagyawant Punde

¶30

20-CRWP-1010-2020.doc

¶31

5 / 5

¶32

registered with Navghar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶33

Rule made absolute on above terns and writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶35

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶36

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶37

Bhagyawant Punde

Himanshu Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Sharma 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

Dr. Pravin Manohar Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul Rambhau Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Umesh Mohanlal Gohil Vs Atul Hastimal Mehta and Ors.

Pranav Jagdishbhai Shingada and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.