Allowed

Abhijeet Ramesh Gage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jul 2021WP/14/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed the FIR and charge-sheet filed against petitioners for offences under Section 498A IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court held that since the parties reached an amicable settlement via mutual consent divorce terms and the complainant voluntarily withdrew allegations, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition allowed; the FIR and Charge-sheet (CC No. Special Case SCST/7/2019) for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(R)(S) SC/ST Act quashed.

Abhijeet Ramesh Gage and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.31 16:50:00 +0530

¶2

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2021

¶5

`1]`	`Mr. Abhijeet Ramesh Gage` `Age 34 years, Occ : Service`	`]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Mr. Ramesh Narhari Gage` `Age 62 years, Occupation – Retired`	`]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Mrs. Malati Ramesh Gage` `Age 62 years, occ : Housewife`	`]` `]` `]`
	`Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are residing at` `Room No.15, Manmandir Chawl` `Hanuman Nagar, Bandrekar Wadi` `Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai – 400 060`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`4]`	`Mrs. Mamta Nitin Late` `Age 37 years, Occ : Housewife`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`5]`	`Mr. Nitin Chandrakant Late` `Age 41 years, Occ : Service`	`]` `]` `]`
	`Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are permanently` `Residing at Plot No.3, Matoshri Niwas,` `Late Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchawati,` `Nashik – 422003` `Versus`	`]` `]` `]….. Petitioners` `] (Ori.Accused)`
`1]`	`The State of Maharashtra`	`]` `]`
`2]`	`The Inspector of Police` `Jogeshwari Police Station` `Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400 060`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Mrs. Nisha Abhijeet Gage` `Alias Ms. Nisha Dinesh Vasankar` `Age 33 years, occ : Self Employed` `Residing at G-2, Lakshmi Zore Chawl,` `Rani Sati Marg, Vistarit, Malad (E),`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
	`Mumbai – 400 097.`	`]….. Respondents`

¶6

1 of 8

¶7

lgc

¶8

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶9

Mr. Deepak S Devkar for the Petitioners.
Mr. S R Shinde, APP for the Respondents/State.
Ms. Ridhi K. Thakkar for Respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 present through Video Conferencing.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE :29th JULY 2021

¶12

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

¶13

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2The Petitioners, by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seek relief of quashing the Charge-sheet bearing CC No.Special Case
SCST/7/2019 pending before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, CR-9,
Dindoshi, arising out of C.R. No.30 of 2019 registered with Jogeshwari Police
Station at the instance of the 3rd Respondent for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989

¶15

3The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 jointly submit that the parties have
settled the dispute. They further submit that the dispute between the parties

¶16

lgc 2 of 8

¶17

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶18

has been settled amicably and the consent terms dated 11/12/2020 have been
filed in the Petition for Divorce by Mutual Consent before the Family Court,
Bandra, Mumbai. The copy of the consent terms dated 11/12/2020 is placed
on record at page 234 of the Writ Paper Book.

¶19

4The 3rd Respondent is present before this Court through Video
Conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3
identified the 3rd Respondent. When we interacted with the 3rd Respondent,
she stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into amicable settlement. She
further stated that there is no coercion or duress. She further stated that
dispute between her and the Petitioners has been settled amicably and the
consent terms have been filed in the Divorce Petition pending before the Family
Court, Bandra, Mumbai. She has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR
and the charge-sheet.

¶20

5In support of her aforesaid statements, the 3rd Respondent has
filed her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 3 to 9, the 3rd Respondent
has stated thus :-

¶21

“3 I say that Petitioner No.1 is my husband, Petitioner No.2 is my father-in-law, the Petitioner No.3 are my mother-inlaw, Petitioner No.4 is my sister-in-law and Petitioner No.5 is my brother-in-law, respectively.

¶22

4 I say that I have filed a Petition bearing No.A-1786 of 2020 for Divorce under section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Ld. Family Court,

¶23

3 of 8

¶24

lgc

¶25

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶26

Bandra, Mumbai against the Petitioner No.1. I say that,
during the pendency of the aforesaid Petition before the
Ld. Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, Petitioner No.1 and I
decided to settle the matter amicably by converting the
aforesaid Petition into Mutual Consent Petition under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as per the
terms and conditions agreement between us.
Accordingly, with the help of our Advocates and Ld.
Counselor of the Ld. Family Court we hve drawn the
Consent Terms in writing to settle all the disputes
between ourselves as we have decided to reside
separately in peace and in harmony. I say that the
Consent Terms dated 11/12/2020 to the effect has
already been filed and verified by the Ld. Family Court,
Bandra, Mumbai and we have already begun the process
for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. Hereto annexed
and marked as “Exhibit A” is the copy of the Consent
Terms dated 11/12/2020

¶27

5 I say that the dispute between us has been settled amicably on the terms and conditions specifically and categorically mentioned in the Consent Terms dated 11/12/2020. I confirm and admit the contents of the said Consent Terms dated 11/12/2020, which have already been filed and verified before the Ld. Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. I say that, needless to state, therefore, I do not seek to pursue SPL CASE SCST NO.7 of 2019 and/or FIR being C. R. No.30 of 2019 dated 2/3/2019 lodged with the Respondent No.2 under Section 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3(1)(R)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, which is filed by me against the Petitioners, herein, and which is pending before the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindhoshi, Mumbai.”

¶28

6 I say that I withdraw all the allegations which I have made against the Petitioners, herein, in the aforesaid FIR/Chargesheet. I also say that I have no other claim against the Petitioners save and except mentioned in the Consent Terms dated 11/12/2020 and specifically and categorically mentioned above.

¶29

4 of 8

¶30

lgc

¶31

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶32

7 I say that considering the above I have decided not to proceed in the aforesaid FIR being C.R. No.30 of 2019 dated 2/3/2019 and Chargesheet filed in the Special Case No.SCST 7/2019 before the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindhoshi, Mumbai, against the Petitioners.

¶33

8 I therefore say that I do not have any objection if the Special Case No.SC ST 7/2019 before the Hon’ble City Civil and Session Court, Dindhoshi, Mumbai in the FIR being No.30/2019 before Jogeshwari (East) Police Station date : 2/3/2019 for offenses punishable under section 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3(1)(R)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, against the Petitioners is quashed by this Hon’ble Court subject to consent Terms dated 11/12/2020.

¶34

9 I also say that this Affidavit is not being filed under any coercion or duress and is being prepared and filed willingly in view of the Consent Terms dated 11/12/2020 which has been arrived at, between the Petitioner No.1 and me.”

¶35

6Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the 3rd
Respondent has stated before this Court that it is her voluntary act to enter into
the settlement without any coercion or duress, no fruitful purpose will be
served by continuing the further proceedings in CC No. Special Case
SCST/7/2019 pending before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, CR-9,
Dindoshi, arising out of C.R. No.30 of 2019 registered with Jogeshwari Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504, 506 r/
w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶36

5 of 8

¶37

lgc

¶38

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶39

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

¶40

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
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.

¶41

8In the case at hand, though offences punishable under Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are alleged, yet, it is
clear that the matrimonial dispute is the principal cause of the dispute. In the

¶42

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶43

6 of 8

¶44

lgc

¶45

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶46

light of aforesaid averments in the affidavit of 3rd Respondent, we do not find
that the offences punishable under SC & ST Act can be said to have been,
prima facie, made out.

¶47

9In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that the 3rd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made in
the impugned FIR and continuation of further proceedings in the impugned
FIR lodged by the 3rd Respondent against and in CC No.Specail Case
SCST/7/2019 the Petitioners would tantamount to the abuse of the process of
the Court. Since the Respondent No.3 is not going to support the allegations in
the FIR, the chances of conviction of the Petitioners 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 impugned
FIR and the Charge-sheet being CC No. Special Case SCST/7/2019 pending
before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, CR-9, Dindoshi, arising out of
C.R. No.30 of 2019 registered with Jogeshwari Police Station at the instance of
the 3rd Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶48

10 In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and,
the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

¶49

“(a)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quashing the said

¶50

7 of 8

¶51

lgc

¶52

(10) jt.cri.wp-14.21.odt

¶53

Charge-Sheet bearing in CC No. Special Case
SCST/7/2019 pending before the City Civil & Session
Court, Dindoshi, CR-9, Dindoshi, vide C.R. No.30 of
2019 for the alleged offences punishable U/s. 498A,
323, 406, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code AND
U/S. 3(1)(R)(S) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.”

¶54

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of

¶55

accordingly.

¶56

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]

¶57

[S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶58

8 of 8

¶59

lgc

Abhijeet Ramesh Gage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijeet Ramesh Gage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Rahul Jyoti Sahani Vs Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Kashinath Motiram Chavan Vs the Commissioner of Police Solapur and Ors.

Kashinath Motiram Chavan Vs the Commissioner of Police Solapur and Ors.

Priyanka Chandrakant Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagwan Ramnath Dhatrak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Farhan Israr Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.