Allowed

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

Bombay HC10 Mar 2021WP/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal writ petition to quash proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. The respondent wife voluntarily withdrew allegations, filed an affidavit consenting to the quashing of the charge sheet, and stated the dispute was resolved in a Family Court settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet and resultantly the proceedings in Criminal Case No. PW/3245/2016 in the 68th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Borivali.

Arujn Debashish Mukherjee and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed Laxmikant by Laxmikant G. Chandan G. Date: Chandan 2021.03.11 10:44:29 +0530

¶2

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.8 OF 2021

¶5

`1]`	`Arjun Debashis Mukherjee` `Age : 35 years, Occ : Service`	`]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Debashish Mukherjee,` `Age : 65 years, Occ : Retired.`	`]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Madhu Debashish Mukherjee` `Age : 62 years, Occ : Housewife`	`]` `]` `]`
	`All residing at Flat No.702,` `Kamla Arcade Building, Plot Nos. 3 and 4` `Sector 30 Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400 701`	`]` `]` `]….. Petitioners.`

¶6

versus

¶7

`1]`	`State of Maharashtra` `Through the Senior Inspector of Police,` `Kasturba Gandhi Marg Police Station,` `Kasturba Cross Road No.1, Chinchpada`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
	`Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066`	`]`
	`Served through the Public Prosecutor,` `Bombay High Court, Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Maitreyee Chakravarty` `@ Maitreyee Mukherjee`	`]` `]`
	`d/o Pranab Chakravarty w/o 1`^st`Petitioner`	`]`
	`Age 34 years, Occupation Service`	`]`
	`Flat No.401 Park West Apartment,`	`]`
	`1, Raheja Estate, Kulup Wadi`	`]`
	`Borivali (East), Mumbai 400 066`	`]…`	`.. Respondents.`

¶8

Mr. Arjun Singh Thakur i/by Ms. Sushma Singh for the Petitioners.
Dr. F R Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Sonal Parab a/w Ms. Akansha Raut for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in Court.

¶9

1 of 7

¶10

lgc

¶11

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶12

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
DATE :10th MARCH 2021

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

2 This Petition is filed for the following substantive relief :-

¶17

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet and resultantly the proceedings in Criminal Case No.PW/ 3245/2016 pending before the 68^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Borivali, Mumbai arising out of First Information Report bearing Crime Register No.396 of 2015 registered with the Kasturba Marg Police Station, Kasturba Cross Road No.1, Chinchpada, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066 under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners herein.

¶18

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and 2^nd

¶19

Respondent jointly submit that the parties have settled the dispute, and
consent terms have been filed before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

¶20

4 The 2^nd Respondent is present before this Court. She is identified

¶21

2 of 7

¶22

lgc

¶23

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶24

by her advocate. She stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such
settlement and give consent for quashing the chargesheet and/or the impugned
proceedings arising out of C R No.396 of 2015.

¶25

5The 2nd Respondent has filed her affidavit in the matter. In
paragraphs 4 to 8 she has stated thus :-

¶26

“4 I say that, in terms of the aforesaid Consent Terms, which record a lawful settlement between the parties, I am filing the present Affidavit withdrawing all allegations, statements and contentions made by me against the Petitioners in the impugned proceedings.

¶27

5 Accordingly I have no objection if the present Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet and/or ;impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶28

6 I agree to personally attend this Hon’ble Court at the hearing of aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition.

¶29

7 I say that, I am filing the present Affidavit consenting to quashing of the impugned proceedings and chargesheet out of my free will and agency and in a sound and disposing state of mind. I state that there is no fear, fraud, undue influence, coercion or compulsion either in me making the present Affidavit or in the filing of the aforesaid Consent Terms dated

¶30

3 of 7

¶31

lgc

¶32

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶33

15th June 2019 before the Family Court at Bandra,
Mumbai.

¶34

8 I say that the settlement arrived at between the parties is lawful and the disputes which are subject matter of the impugned chargesheet and impugned proceedings ar3e personal in nature and no there is no element of any public character or interest involved therein.”

¶35

6Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the consent
terms are arrived at between the parties and such consent terms are filed
before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the issues raised before the
Family Court, Bandra, are going to be decided by the said court, we deem it
appropriate not to give elaborate reasons. Suffice it to say that in view of
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the statements made by
the 2nd Respondent in her affidavit filed before this Court, the 2nd Respondent
does not wish to peruse allegations made by her in the impugned FIR and
participate in the proceedings in Criminal Case No.PW/3245/2016 pending
before the 68th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Borivali,
Mumbai arising out of First Information Report bearing Crime Register No.396
of 2015 registered with the Kasturba Marg Police Station, Kasturba Cross Road
No.1, Chinchpada, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066 under Sections 498(A),
504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
Petitioners herein, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition.

¶36

4 of 7

¶37

lgc

¶38

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶39

7The 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 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.

¶40

8 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations made in 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶41

5 of 7

¶42

lgc

¶43

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶44

the impugned FIR and further continuation of the proceedings in Criminal Case
No.PW/3245/2016 pending before the 68th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate’s Court at Borivali, Mumbai arising out of First Information Report
bearing Crime Register No.396 of 2015 registered with the Kasturba Marg
Police Station, Kasturba Cross Road No.1, Chinchpada, Borivali (East), Mumbai
– 400 066 under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners herein would tantamount to the abuse
of the process of the Law/Court. Since the Respondent No.2 is not going to
support the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the chances of the
conviction of the Petitioners would be remote and bleak. In that view of the
matter, the writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

¶45

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet and resultantly the proceedings in Criminal Case No.PW/ 3245/2016 pending before the 68^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Borivali, Mumbai arising out of First Information Report bearing Crime Register No.396 of 2015 registered with the Kasturba Marg Police Station, Kasturba Cross Road No.1, Chinchpada, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066 under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners herein.

¶46

9Rule is made absolute to the above extent and, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

6 of 7

¶48

lgc

¶49

(22) cri.wp-8.21.odt

¶50

10The parties to abide strictly by the Consent Terms filed before the
Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and shall cooperate with the Family Court,
Bandra, Mumbai for deciding the proceedings before it by attending the dates
fixed by the said Court.

¶51

[MANISH PITALE, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶52

7 of 7

¶53

lgc

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arujn Debashish Mukherjee and Ors. 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

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sunil Sankharlalji Ostwal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Picsell Realtors LLP Throughits Authorised Representative Mr. Vineet Govardhan Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Jagdish Ramnivas Sarda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kunal Manilal Gada Andors Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.