Allowed

Shashikant Prakash Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2021WP/5606/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and chargesheet arising from matrimonial discord. Finding that the parties had reached an amicable settlement, including mutual consent for divorce and maintenance payment, the Court held that continuation of prosecution was an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2016 and chargesheet in Criminal Case No. 1862/PW/2016 as abuse of process due to settlement.

Shashikant Prakash Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5606 OF 2019

¶4

Shashikant Prakash Shinde and Others …Petitioners

¶5

vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents

¶7

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶8

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.09.29 12:29:34 +0530

¶9

Ms. Dhara Shah i/b. Mr. Shantanu Patil, for the Petitioners. Mr. Satish Agarwal, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

Ms. Abhiruchi Shashikant Shinde, the Respondent No. 2 present.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2021

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent for the counsels for parties, heard fnalll.

¶15

This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to quash and set aside the prosecution being Case No. 1862/PW/2016 arising out of First Information Report No. 47 of 2016 registered with Charkop police station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Penal Code) at the instance of respondent No. 2- the frst informant.

¶16

1/6

¶17

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶18

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶19

The marriage of the respondent No. 2 was solemnized with petitioner No. 1. It appears that the marital life of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was afficted with discord. Eventualll, the respondent No. 2 lodged report with Charkop police station alleging the matrimonial crueltl, harassment, assault and criminal intimidation at the hands of the petitioners. Post completion of the investigation chargesheet has been lodged leading to Criminal Case No. 1862/PW/2016 on the fle of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24^th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.

¶20

Ms. Dhara Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Satish Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 jointll submit that, in the intervening period, the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have amicabll resolved the dispute, in Petition No.A-1999 of 2016, instituted bl respondent No. 2 for divorce. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Consent terms have been executed (Exhibit C to the petition). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had agreed to dissolve the marriage bl mutual consent. The petitioner No. 1 has deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the Famill Court, which is agreed to be paid to respondent No. 2 towards permanent alimonl. Thel also submit that respondent No. 2 has sworn an affdavit before this Court.

¶21

2/6

¶22

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶23

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶24

The respondent No. 2 appeared before this Court. We have interacted with respondent No. 2. She submitted that she has voluntarill settled the dispute with the petitioners. She has fled the affdavit out of her own volition and there is no coercion or duress. She admitted the contents of the affdavit and execution thereof. Paragraph nos. 2 to 5 of the affdavit read as under:

¶25

2] I sal that I and the petitioners above mentioned have agreed for divorce bl mutual consent before the Famill Court.

¶26

3] I sal that I and the above said petitioners have fled consent terms.

¶27

4] I sal that the above Criminal Writ Petition No. 5606 of 2019 has been fled before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2016 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507 read with 34 of IPC at Charkop police station and I have no objection if this Court allows this petition for quashing of the said FIR and the charge sheet.

¶28

5] I sal that the petitioner have deposited Rs. 5 lakhs towards ml daughters maintenance as a lump sum amount before the Famill Court.

¶29

In the light of the aforesaid statement, submissions and averments in the affdavit, we have perused the material on record. It appears that on account of matrimonial dispute multiple proceedings were fled, including the subject frst information report. The parties have arrived at an amicable resolution of the dispute before the marriage counselor, Famill Court, Mumbai and consent terms have been fled. It seems that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 have resolved all the disputes including the

¶30

3/6

¶31

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶32

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶33

custodl of the daughter and maintenance. Thel have also decided to part wals amicabll and move on in life. In view of the settlement of the dispute, in all its facets, it is verl unlikell that the respondent No. 2 would support the prosecution and it would end in conviction. Continuation of the prosecution would thus be a futile exercise. It would cause grave prejudice to the petitioners and respondent No.2 as well. It would also amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶34

A proftable reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab¹ , wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, exposited the power of the High Court to quash the FIR or prosecution in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as under:

¶35

……….. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences 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, High Court may quash 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 criminal case would put 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the

¶36

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

¶37

4/6

¶38

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶39

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶40

criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

The aforesaid propositions appll with full force to the case at hand. The offences have their genesis in the matrimonial discord. The parties have settled the entire dispute. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, we are inclined to allow the petition.

¶43

Hence, the following order:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i] The petition stands allowed in terms of praler clause (a) which reads as under:

¶46

(a) That the Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR No. 47 of 2016 dated 18^th Februarl, 2016 registered with the Charkop police station, Mumbai and chargesheet fled in Criminal Case No. 1862/PW/2016 annexed hereinabove as Exh.A and Exh.B respectivell.

¶47

ii] We request the learned Judge, Famill Court to dispose of the matrimonial proceeding between petitioner No. 1 and respondent

¶48

5/6

¶49

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶50

wp-5606-2019.doc

¶51

No. 2 as expeditiousll as possible.

¶52

iii] The parties shall render necessarl cooperation to the learned Judge in the expeditious disposal of the said proceeding.

¶53

iv] Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶54

(N.J.JAMADAR, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶55

6/6

¶56

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

Shashikant Prakash Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Prakash Shinde 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

Shri. Madhukar Sahebrao Hon Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankur Mahendra Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Avinash Arvind Andhare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sajid Shakir Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

63 Moons Technologies Limited Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Arif Anwar Bhati and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.