Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

1/5 Judgment WP-5375-18+2.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

MandiraSalgaonkar Digitallysigned byMandiraSalgaonkarDate:2021.01.1917:31:59+0530

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5375 OF 2018

¶6

1. Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar}
Age 47 years, Occupation – Businessman}
}
2. Shashikant Vyenkatesh Yellapurkar}
Age 77 years, Occupation – Businessman}
Both residing at A-58, Alankar Society,}
Opp. Sarvesh Hall, Tilak Road,}
Dombivali (East), Dist. Thane}.. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra}
(Through Officer-in-charge}
Domivali Police Station, District-Thane)}
}
2. Smt.Madhura Pushkaraj Yellapurkar}
Age 43 years, Occupation- Housewife}
Residing at -C/o. Vikas Ghaisas,}
101, Vyankatesh Prasad, Pandurangwadi,}
Road No.1, Dombivali (East), Thane}.. Respondents

¶7

ALONGWITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5244 OF 2017

¶9

1. Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar}
Age 45 years, Occupation – Business}
}
2. Shashikant Yellapurkar}
Age 76 years, Occupation – Business}
}
3. Madhuri Shashikant Yellapurkar}
Age 70 years, Occupation – Business}
Residing at A/58, Alankar Society,}
Opp. Sarvesh Hall, Tilak Road,}
Dombivali (East), Dist. Thane}.. Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶12

2/5	Judgment WP-5375-18+2.doc
`1.The State of Maharashtra` `2. Smt.Madhura Pushkaraj Yellapurkar`	`}` `}` `}`
`Age 42 years, Occupation- Housewife`	`}`
`Residing at -C/o. Vikas Ghaisas,`	`}`
`101, Vyankatesh Prasad, Pandurangwadi,`	`}`
`Road No.1, Dombivali (East), Thane`	`}` `.. Respondents`

¶13

ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5725 OF 2019

¶14

`1. Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar`	`}`
`Age 47 years, Occupation – Businessman`	`}` `}`
`2. Shashikant Vyenkatesh Yellapurkar`	`}`
`Age 77 years, Occupation – Businessman`	`}`
`Both residing at A/58, Alankar Society,`	`}`
`Opp. Sarvesh Hall, Tilak Road,`	`}`
`Dombivali (East), Dist. Thane`	`}`	`.. Petitioners`
`Versus`
`1.The State of Maharashtra`	`}`
`(Through Officer-in-charge`	`}`
`Domivali Police Station, District-Thane)` `2. Smt.Madhura Pushkaraj Yellapurkar` `Age 43 years, Occupation- Housewife`	`}` `}` `}` `}`
`Residing at -C/o. Vikas Ghaisas,`	`}`
`101, Vyankatesh Prasad, Pandurangwadi,`	`}`
`Road No.1, Dombivali (East), Thane` `…`	`}`	`.. Respondents`

¶15

Mr.Vivek Yadav i/b Mr.Pankaj Purway for the Petitioners.
Mr.Jay Lathigara i/b Nagi and Associates for Respondent No.2.
Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶16

 CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶17

 DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2021

¶18

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶19

3/5 Judgment WP-5375-18+2.doc

¶20

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

¶21

1.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in
all the three petitions had tendered across the Bar separate affidavit-
in-reply of respondent No.2. The same are taken on record.

¶22

2.Since the parties to the three writ petitions are common, we
think it appropriate to hear and dispose of all these three writ
petitions by common judgment. It is informed by the counsel
appearing for the petitioners that in Writ Petition No.5244 of 2017,
chage-sheet has been filed.

¶23

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

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
second respondent jointly submits that the controversy/discord
between the parties is amicably settled. The learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that in view of settlement and consent
terms arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 has no
objection for quashing the FIR. Relying upon the contents of the
said consent terms, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
second respondent jointly states that the impugned FIR may be
quashed.

¶25

5.Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are present in the Court.
They are identified by their respective advocates. On specific query
to the second respondent, she states that it is her voluntary act,
without any coercion to agree for settlement and sign consent terms.
She further stated that all the three crimes registered bearing FIR

¶26

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶27

4/5 Judgment WP-5375-18+2.doc

¶28

No.I-95 of 2018, C.R.No.I-299 of 2015 and proceedings in Regular
Criminal Case No.516 of 2016 and FIR No.453 of 2018, which are
impugned in the abovementioned three petitions may be quashed in
view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶29

6.It is crystal clear that, the second respondent does not wish to
prosecute/proceed with the allegations in three different crimes i.e.
FIR bearing No.I-95 of 2018 registered at Dombivali Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 409, 465, 468,
471 r/w 34 of IPC, C.R.No.I-299 of 2015 registered at Dombivali
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
323, 406 read with 34 of IPC and the proceedings in Regular
Criminal Case No.516 of 2016 and C.R.No.453 of 2018 registered at
Dombivali Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 465, 468, 471, 120 read with 34 of IPC. Therefore, no
fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the further
investigation in the aforesaid crimes, since the second respondent is
not going to support the allegations levelled in the aforesaid crimes
and chances of the conviction of the petitioners would be remote
and bleak.

¶30

7.Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, further
continuation of the proceedings of FIR No.I-95 of 2018, C.R.No.I-
299 of 2015 and the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.516 of
2016 and FIR No.453 of 2018 will be an exercise in futility and
abuse of the process of the Court.

¶31

8.The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab
and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having

¶32

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶33

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶34

5/5 Judgment WP-5375-18+2.doc

¶35

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 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, 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 has also held that 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.

¶36

9.In light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and keeping in
view the Consent Terms, so also interaction with respondent No.2, in
order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the
process of the Law Court, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in all
the aforesaid three petitions.

¶37

10.The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶38

 (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶39

(S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶40

M.M.Salgaonkar

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Pravin Sanghvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramashish Gopal Gupta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pushkaraj Shashikant Yellapurkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Amla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.