SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gaurav Nikhil Pandarkandy And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 October, 2018




Gaurav Nikhil Pandarkandy and Others ..Applicants.
State of Maharashtra Another. ..Respondents.

Mr. Prashant Badale for the Applicants.
Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. K. A. Bhatia for Respondent No. 2.


Date : October 29, 2018.

P. C. :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties. This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR

bearing CR. No. 299 of 2017 registered with Meghwadi Police Station

at the instance of Respondent No.2 for offence punishable under

sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 504 and 507 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

2. Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are the husband

and wife. Rest of the Applicants are the relations of Applicant No. 1.

The matrimonial dispute between the parties gave rise to filing of civil

as well as criminal proceedings by the parties against one another and

patilsr 1/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:05 :::

the present FIR is one of them. Pending investigation into above FIR,

with the help and intervention of the family friends and relatives

parites settled their disputes amicably and filed consent terms before

the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-61 of 2018, copy

of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to t he application. In terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties, they have approached this

Court for quashng the subject FIR by consent.

3. Respondent No. 2 has accordingly filed an affidavit

dated 24th October 2018 wherein in paragraph 4 she has given her no

objection for quashing the subject FIR against the Applicants in view of

the settlement.

4. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana [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

patilsr 2/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:05 :::

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


5. 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

SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the

patilsr 3/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:05 :::

subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts

which are already overburdened.

6. 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 (b).


patilsr 4/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:05 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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