Apl-1072/18.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1072 OF 2018
Paresh Suresh Pahuja and Others. ..Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra Another. ..Respondents.
Mr. Ashok K. Goel I/b Vikram R. Goel for the Applicants.
Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Surin Usgaonkar for Respondent No. 2.
Coram : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Date : March 14, 2019.
P. C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
The application is filed seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR. No.9
of 2017 registered with Badnra Police Station, Mumbai at the
instance of Respondent No.1 against the Applicants for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No.2 got married in
the year 2011. rest of the Applicants are the relations of Applicant
No.1 and in-laws of Respondent No.2. The matrimonial dispute
between the parties gave rise to the filing of civil as well as
criminal proceedings by the parties against one another and the
present FIR is one of them.
patilsr 1/ 4
::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into
above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members,
friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their
differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the
understanding arrived at between them, present application is
filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No. 2.
They further submitted that in a proceeding before the Family
Court, at Badnra, Mumbai, namely, Petition No.F/14209/2017, the
parties have filed consent terms and in consonance with the said
consent terms, the Family Court has passed decree of divorce
under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 6 th
Mach 2019. In paragraph 3 and 4 she has given no objection to
quash the subject FIR. Respondent No.3 is personally present
before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted
that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without
there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further
confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIR
initiated by her against the Applicants.
5. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana
patilsr 2/ 4
::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.
reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of
settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can
be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in
terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the
Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are
reproduced herein below:
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punishing a husband
and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands
of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter
productive and would act against interests of women
and against the object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of
inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian
Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code.”
Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this
Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra
[2008(5) LJ.Soft 46].
6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been
patilsr 3/ 4
::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.
amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of
complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in
nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime.
The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the
society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs.
State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would
be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately
burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.
7. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the
considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the
subject FIR. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
patilsr 4/ 4
::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
