SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Sureshkumar Tibrewala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 30 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.31
10:33:20 +0530 (16) cri.apl-545.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2020

Deepak Sureshkumar Tibrewala ]
Age : 34 years, Occ : Nil ]
R/o – Plot No.199-B, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangbad ]…. Applicant

versus

1] State of Maharashtra ]
Through Police Inspector ]
Police Station Kothrud, ]
Pune ]
]
2] Prerna Deepak Tibrewala ]
(Prerna Ramgopal Kedia) ]
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service ]
R/o. Plot No.100, Mahatma Society ]
Lane No.6, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, ]
Kothrud Road, Pune ]….. Respondents.

Mr. C P Sengaonkar for the Applicant.

Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Chetan Agarwal for Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 present through video conferencing.

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

DATE : 30th JULY 2021

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

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2 The Applicant has filed this Application for the following

lgc 1 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt

substantial relief :-

“(B) The Crime No.150/2017, registered at Kothrud Police
Station for the offences under 419 of THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860, 66(c), 66(d) OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT and the consequent criminal
proceedings Regular Criminal Case No.4963/2018
(State v/s. Deepak) pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class (17) at Pune, for offences under 419 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 66(c), 66(d) OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT be quashed and set
aside.”

3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned

counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute.

4 The 2nd Respondent is present before this Court through Video

Conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2

identified the 2nd Respondent. When we interacted with the 2 nd Respondent,

she stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into amicable settlement. She has

no objection for quashing the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet.

5 In support of her aforesaid statements, the 2 nd Respondent has

filed her affidavit before this Court. In paragraphs 4 to 10, the 2 nd Respondent

has stated thus :-

“4 I say I admitted that we have amicably settled the above

lgc 2 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt

said matter out of court.

5 I say that I and applicant No.1 married on 25/01/2015
at Aayush Resort. Tq. Panvel, Dist. Raigad as per the
Hindu rites and customs.

6 I say the contentions state in Para No.3 are admitted by
me. We have filed compromise deed before the Family
Court Pune.

7 I say the contentions stated in grounds of applications
are admitted to me.

8 I say that as we have settled our dispute out of court and
filed compromise deed in the divorce petition filed by me
before the Honourable Family Court Pune there is no
point in proceeding with the case bearing RCC
4963/2018.

9 I say that, I withdraw all the allegations mentioned in
the complaint filed by me against Applicant in the
Complaint bearing Crime No.150/2017.

10 I say I do not want to proceed with the complaint filed
by me against the applicant. I have no objection if the
Honourable Justice is pleased to quash the complaint
filed by me.”

6 Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the 2 nd

Respondent has stated before this Court that it is her voluntary act to enter into

the settlement without any coercion or duress, no fruitful purpose will be

served by continuing the further proceedings in RCC No.4963/2018 and the

FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 registered with Kothrud Police Station Pune at

the instance of the 2nd Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections

419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the

lgc 3 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt

Information Technology Act.

8 The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh 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 offence 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 is

further held that, as 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.

9 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly

clear that the 2nd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made in
1 2012 (10) SCC 303

lgc 4 of 5
(16) cri.apl-545.20.odt

the impugned FIR and continuation of further proceedings in RCC

No.4963/2018 and the FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 would tantamount to

the abuse of the process of the Court. Since the Respondent No.2 is not going

to support the allegations in the FIR, the chances of conviction of the Applicant

would be remote and bleak. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of the

Court and to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and

set aside impugned FIR bearing Crime No.150/2017 registered with Kothrud

Police Station Pune at the instance of the 2nd Respondent for the offence

punishable under Sections 419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections

66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, and the criminal

proceedings in RCC No.4963/2018

10 In that view of the matter, the Application deserves to be allowed and,

the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule made absolute in the

aforesaid terms. The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]

lgc 5 of 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation