1 Cri.A-6843-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6843 OF 2016
1. Azharuddin Khan S/o Ziauddin Khan,
Age: 69 years, occu. Retired,
2. Nilofar Khan W/o Azharuddin Khan,
Age: 55 years, occu: Household,
3. Samim Atif Khan S/o Azharuddin Khan,
Age: 29 years, occu: Service,
R/o Flat No. 102, A-Wing Ascon,
IV Building, Nayannagar, Mira Road,
Thane, at present r/o Park INN,
Sandton, Katterene Street,
Jonasburg, South Africa ...APPLICANTS
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through I.O. City Chowk Police
Station Aurangabad in
Crime No. 98/2015.
2. Khan Shaghufta W/o Samim Atiq Khan,
Age: 27 years, occu: Household,
R/o: House No. 657, Pensionpura,
Chavani, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. A.P. Piratwad, Advocate for applicants
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, APP for respondent No. 1
Mr. N.T. Tribhuvan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
.....
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2017.
RESERVED ON : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2017.
JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)
1. The applicants have moved the present application by
invoking remedy under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
2 Cri.A-6843-16
(for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash and set aside Regular Criminal Case
No. 955 of 2016 instituted pursuant to FIR vide crime No I-98 of
2015 registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad for the
offences punishable u/s. 498A and 504 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. Applicant No. 3 – Samim Atif Khan is the husband whereas
applicants No. 1 and 2 are in-laws of respondent No. 2 – Khan
Shaghufta. The marriage of applicant No. 3 – Samim Atif Khan and
respondent No. 2 – Khan Shaghufta was solemnized on 08-01-2014
at Aurangabad as per Muslim rites. But, there was marital discord
in between the spouse. It has been alleged that applicants
maltreated and harassed respondent No. 2 – wife Khan Shaghufta
for demand of money as well as trifle domestic reasons. Respondent
No. 2, fed up with maltreatment by husband and in-laws
approached to the City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and
lodged the complaint/FIR, pursuant to which, the Police of City
Chowk Police Station registered the crime No. I-98 of 2015 under
sections 498A and 504 red with section 34 of the IPC and swung
into action. During the course of investigation, the statements of
witnesses came to be recorded. After completion of procedural
formalities, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet before
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, and same is
registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 955 of 2015.
::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
3 Cri.A-6843-16
3. Pending the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case N0. 955 of
2016, the applicants moved present application seeking relief to
quash and set aside the criminal charges nurtured against them on
behalf of respondent No. 2 wife Khan Shaghufta. According to
applicants, all the allegations against them are vague, omnibus and
not sustainable within purview of law. Respondent No. 2 wife –
Shaghufta insisted applicant No. 3 – husband to return to India for
residence. There were no ill-treatment and harassment to
respondent No. 2 Shaghufta at the hands of applicants. Therefore,
applicants approached to this court and prayed to quash and set
aside criminal proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 955 of 2016,
instituted following first information report (for short “FIR”) in crime
No I-98 of 2015 registered with City Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad.
4. However, during the hearing of petition, the matrimonial
dispute came to be referred to the mediator for amicable settlement
in between the spouse. It has been reported that, efforts of the
mediator yield result and the spouse settled their dispute amicably
amongst them. Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit in-reply on
record to that effect and submitted that she does not want to
proceed further in the criminal proceedings of Regular Criminal Case
No. 955 of 2016, pending before the learned Magistrate.
5. We have given patience hearing to both learned counsel
appearing for the parties. Perused the affidavit-in-reply of
::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
4 Cri.A-6843-16
respondent No. 2 filed on record as well as consent terms reduced
into writing in between the spouse for dissolution of their marital tie
after amicable settlement. The consent terms are taken on record
and marked as “X” for identification purpose. Respondent No. 2 –
Khan Shaghufta suo-moto remained present before this court. We
preferred to interact with her in regard to terms of compromise and
her willingness to withdraw the allegations nurtured against the
applicants in regard to maltreatment and harassment as well as
criminal intimidation as mentioned in the FIR vide crime No. I-98 of
2015. Respondent No. 2 – Khan Shaghufta categorically stated that
the marital dispute in between the spouse has already been settled
amicably. She has received lump-sum amount towards maintenance
from applicant No. 3 – husband Samin Atif Khan. Moreover, marital
relations has also been dissolved in between them after giving
divorce as per Mohammedan Law. Therefore, she does not want to
pursue the criminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No.
955 of 2016 and she has no objection to quash and set aside the
proceedings by exercising inherent powers under section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
6. Admittedly, the spouse settled their matrimonial dispute
amicably and they started residing separately after dissolution of
marital relation. In view of subsequent development of settlement of
marital discord in between the spouse, the respondent No. 2 – wife
Khan Shaghufta does not want to proceed further with Regular
::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
5 Cri.A-6843-16
Criminal Case No. 955 of 2016 instituted on the basis of FIR vide
crime No. I-98 of 2015 registered at City Chowk Police Station
against the applicants under section 498A, 504 read with section 34
of the IPC. At this juncture, we may refer to legal guidelines
delineated by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of
Punjab and another reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5333. The Apex
Court, in paragraph No. 54 of said judgment has observed that:
“Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim
has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it doesso as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be
an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is
restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on
the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers
and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the
crimdoer only because he and the victim have settled the disputeamicably or that the victim has been paid paid compensation, yet
certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or
without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mentaldepravity under IPC or offences of mortal turpitude under
special statues, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between offender and victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly
and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc, or the family dispute, where::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
6 Cri.A-6843-16the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, theHigh Court may within the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint of F.I.R. If
it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardlyany likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing
the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated.”
7. In view of aforesaid legal guidelines, we have no any
hesitation to accept the contentions put forth on behalf of applicants
and respondent No. 2 – wife Khan Shaghufta. The alleged offence is
of a personal nature and resolution of the dispute on amicable
settlement would put the litigation to an end and it would bring
mental peace and security in between families. In case, the criminal
proceeding is allowed to be continued against the applicants it would
tantamount to abuse of process of law and to dissipate the precious
time and energy of the court of law. No any fruitful purpose would
be sub-served to secure the ends of justice after trial of
applicant/accused for the charges pitted against them. In these
peculiar circumstances, there would not be any impediment to
quash and set aside criminal proceeding pending before the learned
Magistrate, as prayed on behalf of both side.
8. In the above premise, the application stands allowed. Regular
Criminal Case No. 955 of 2016 instituted pursuant to FIR vide crime
No I-98 of 2015 registered at City Chowk Police Station,
::: Uploaded on – 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
7 Cri.A-6843-16
Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 498A and
504 read at section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
Inform the concerned learned Magistrate, Aurangabad accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
MTK
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2017 00:58:37 :::
