The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a crossover report regarding offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The court found the dispute was private, amicably settled, and lacked prosecution support from the complainant, satisfying the test to prevent abuse of process.
The impugned C.R. No.460 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.09.25 15:35:28 +0530
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3170 OF 2019
1] |
Mr. Arif Anwar Bhati |
]] |
|---|---|---|
2] |
Mr. Adil Anwar Bhati |
]] |
Both Adult Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai |
] |
|
Residing at Room No.9, |
] |
|
Plot No.89/A, T.P.S.-III, |
] |
|
33rdRoad, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 |
]….. Petitioners. |
Versus |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
1] |
The State of MaharashtraThrough Office Commissioner of PoliceCrawford Market, Mumbai |
]]]] |
|
2] |
The Senior Inspector of PoliceKurar Police Station |
]] |
|
Malad (East), Mumbai |
]] |
||
3] |
Mrs. Saba Salman BadgujarAge – 22 years, Occ : housewife,Residing at Flat No.402/B-Wing, |
]]] |
|
Sugara Park, Pathanwadi |
] |
||
Malad (East), Mumbai – 400097 |
]… |
.. Respondents. |
Ms. P C Pandey for the Petitioners.
Mr. K V Saste, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2/ State.
Mr. Shadab Khopekar i/by Mr. Nilesh D Soni for Respondent No.3.
The Petitioners and Respondent No.3 are present in Court.
CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE :24th September 2021
lgc
1 of 6
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)
1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2The Petitioners by this Petition take exception to C. R. No.460 of
2018 registered with Kurar Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian penal Code.
3The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the
Respondent No.3 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the
dispute. It is submitted that the Petitioners and the 3rd Respondent are the
relatives and with the help of intervention of the elderly persons, they have
decided to put to end their dispute. It is further submitted that the impugned
FIR has been lodged out of mis-understanding, at the instance of the 3rd
Respondent.
4Pursuant to the notice issued to the 3rd Respondent, she has filed
her affidavit. Today the 3rd Respondent is present before Court. She is
identified by her advocate. We have interacted with the 3rd Respondent. She
stated that it is her voluntary act without any coercion to enter into such
amicable settlement and join the the prayer of the Petitioners for quashing the
impugned FIR. She further stated that she has filed her affidavit out of her
2 of 6
lgc
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
freewill and without any coercion, and she has no objection for quashing the
impugned FIR. She further stated that she thoroughly understood the
averments made in her affidavit and the same are are acceptable to her.
5It will be appropriate to reproduce Paragraphs 2 to 7 of the
affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent, which read thus :-
“2 I say that dispute between us is amicably settled and accordingly I do not wish to prosecute case against the Petitioners.3 As the dispute is amicably settled, I hereby give my consent/no objection for quashing of FIR No.460 of 2018 registered with Kurar Police Station, Mumbai.4 I say that the present affidavit is executed without any force or coercion and I have no objection if the present FIR No.460 of 2018 registered with Kurar Police Station, Mumbai, which is lodge upon my complaint is quashed and/or set aside.5 I say that disputes between us is amicably settlement out of my own freewill, therefore I do not wish to prosecute case against the Petitioners or pursue any legal proceedings against the Petitioners in the subject matter.6 I say that dispute given rise to the present complaint is private in nature which establishes that no purpose will be served to conduct the trial7 I say that present affidavit is executed for better and effectual quash/withdraw/NOC to set aside FIR No.460 of 2018 registered with Kurar Police Station, Mumbai.”6 The Petitioners are also present before this Court. On a specificquery being put to them, whether they will again indulge in such type of
3 of 6
lgc
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
incident, they replied and assured this Court that in future they will not give
any rise to the quarrel with the 3rd Respondent.
7Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and since the
3rd Respondent has stated that the impugned FIR has been lodged by her out of
mis-understanding and since she voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute
with the Petitioners, it is crystal clear that she is not going to support the
prosecution case, and therefore, the chances of conviction of the Petitioners
would be bleak and remote. In view of the stand taken by the 3rd Respondent,
which is reflected in her affidavit so also our interaction with the 3rd
Respondent, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of further
investigation in FIR No.460 of 2018.
8The 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
4 of 6
lgc
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
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.
9In view of the amicable settlement between the parties and the
affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent, it is abundantly clear that Respondent
No.3 is not going to support the allegations made against the Petitioners in the
impugned FIR. In the light of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs and to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law/Court
as also in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and since
the Petitioners and the 3rd Respondent are relatives and they have settled the
dispute amicably, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the same is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court by its writ, order r direction of appropriate nature be pleased to quash and set aside the C.R. No.460 of 2018 registered with Kurar Police Station, punishable under section 354, 323, 504, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, which is pending on the file of Ld. Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate, 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai arising out of aid C.R. No.460 of 2018”5 of 6
lgc
(7) cri.wp-3170.19.odt
10Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal Writ
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J]
[S. S. SHINDE , J]
6 of 6
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned crossover report to be quashed due to amicable settlement and private nature of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Giansingh v. State of Punjab and AnotherFollowed¶8
Giansingh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Arif Anwar Bhati and Mr. Adil Anwar Bhati
The State of Maharashtra
Senior Inspector of Police, Kurar Police Station
Mrs. Saba Salman Badgujar
S. S. Shinde
N. J. Jamadar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court