Allowed

Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2021WP/822/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and the respondent was willing to forego support of allegations, continuation of the case would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of First Information Report No.368 of 2019 registered with Dahisar Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra and Ors. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Mandira Salgaonkar

¶2

Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.02 17:10:04 +0530

¶3

1/4 WP-822-21 (OJ).doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2021

¶7

`1.Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra`	`]` `]`
`2.Girijashankar Rajdev Mishra`	`]` `]`
`3.Seema Girijashankar Mishra`	`]` `]`
`4.Gaurav Girijashankar Mishra` `All Residing at Flat No. 201, Building` `No.11, Shakti Nagar, Dahisar (E),` `Mumbai 400 068`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`5.Pooja Kamlesh Pandey` `Residing at Room No.504, Rakhi Tower,` `Tata Road, No.3, Borivali (E), Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]`	`.. Petitioners`
`VERSUS`
`1. State of Maharashtra` `Through the office of Public Prosecutor` `High Court, Bombay`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`2.Laxmi Vaibhav Mishra nee` `Laxmi Nagendra Pandey` `Residing at A/10, Silver Strip CHS Ltd.,` `Vakola Pipe Line, Santacruz (E),` `Mumbai – 400 055`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`	`.. Respondents`

¶8

Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra for the Petitioners.
Mr.Abhishek R. Mishra for Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 present in Court.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 present.

¶9

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶10

2/4 WP-822-21 (OJ).doc

¶11

PSI Santosh Chikhalkar attached to Dahisar Police
Station present.

¶12

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
 MANISH PITALE, JJ.
 DATED: 01st MARCH, 2021

¶13

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

¶14

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

¶15

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent
No.2 submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has tendered across the bar,
affidavit of respondent No.2. Same is taken on record.

¶16

3.Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She has been
identified by her counsel. Respondent No.2 has stated that it is her
voluntary act to enter into such settlement and join the prayer of the
petitioners for quashing the FIR. It is not necessary to reproduce the
contents of the affidavit of respondent No.2 since it would be treated
as part of the record.

¶17

4.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh 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 offences arising out of

¶18

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶19

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶20

3/4 WP-822-21 (OJ).doc

¶21

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.

¶22

5.Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably
settled the dispute, we are inclined to allow this petition as
respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations in the
impugned FIR and chances of conviction of the petitioners would be
bleak and, therefore continuation of further investigation of
C.R.No.368 of 2019 registered with Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, would be an exercise
in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶23

6.In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the petition deserves
to be allowed, and the FIR is required to be quashed.

¶24

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶25

4/4 WP-822-21 (OJ).doc

¶26

7. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under :-

¶27

“(a) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to quash the First
Information Report (F.I.R.) No.368 of 2019 lodged with
Dahisar Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC against the Petitioners herein.”

¶28

8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

9. The parties shall strictly abide by the consent terms arrived at between the parties. Any breach of the said terms will be seriously viewed.

¶30

 (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶31

 (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶32

M.M.Salgaonkar

Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Girijashankar Mishra 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

Paritosh Akhilesh Chaube and Ors. Vs Ashmi Paritosh Chaube and Anr.

Jagdish S/O. Sonaji Palodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil Sampat Pawar @ Neel Pawar Vs Pooja Surendra Chopra and Anr.

Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lahoriya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Vishnu Birmole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.