IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 932 OF 2018
Arvind Tanaji Shelar and Others. ..Applicants.
Pooja Arvind Shelar Another. ..Respondents.
Ms. Nikita Chutke for the Applicants.
Mrs. P. P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. R. R. Lanjekar for Respondent No. 2.
Coram : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Date : September 27, 2018.
P. C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicants, learned
APP for the Respondent-State and the learned counsel for Respondent
No.1. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1908, seeking to quash and set aside the FIR
bearing No. 253 of 2016 registered with Oshiwara Police Station,
Mumbai at the instance of Respondent No. 1 for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.1 are husband wife.
Rest of the Applicants are relations of Applicant No.1 and in-laws of
Respondent No.1. The matrimonial disputes between the parties gave
rise to the filing of civil as well as criminal proceedings by the parties
patilsr 1/ 4
Sachin by Sachin
Ramchandra Ramchandra Patil
Patil Date: 2018.10.01
against one another and the subject matter of present application is
one of them.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties
submitted that during the pendency of investigation, 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. 1.
4. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 30 th July
2018. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, she has stated that she has
no objection for quashing the subject FIR. Respondent No.1 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
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
patilsr 2/ 4
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
Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft
6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been 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
patilsr 3/ 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 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