SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kunal Ashok Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 March, 2018

1 Cri WP 1591-2017



1) Kunal Ashok Patil,
Age 28 years, Occupation Service,

2) Ashok Nathaji Patil,
Age 63 years, Occupation Retired,

3) Pushpa Ashok Patil,
Age 61 years, Occupation Retired,

No.1 to 3 R/o Plot No.8, Pramod Nagar,
Sector -1, Nakane Road, Deopur,
Dhule Dist. Dhule.

4) Sau. Harshada Raja Ayyar,
Age 38 years, Occupation Household,
R/o. Airoli, Navi Mumbai.

5) Yogeshri Jagdish Garud,
Age 32 years, Occupation Household,
R/o Gudhe, Taluka Karad,
Dist. Satara. .. Petitioners.


1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Chalisgaon Police Station,
District Jalgaon.

2) Sonal Kunal Patil,
Age 25 years, Occupation Household,
R/o. “Bhaushri”, Shivashakti Nagar,
Near Bhole Baba Darbar, Chalisgaon,
Tal. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents

Mr. A. S. Savale, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. D. R. Kale,Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1 / State.
Mr. D. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
2 Cri WP 1591-2017


DATE : 15-03-2018

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi. J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of

learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court

under Article 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash the

First Information Report (Hereinafter referred as ‘FIR’) bearing No.

00/2017 dated 14-07-2017 registered with Chalisgaon Police

Station, District Jalgaon, subsequently renumbered as FIR No. 114

of 2017 dated 02-09-2017 for the offence punishable under Section

498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner No.1 got married

with respondent No.2 on 17-12-2014. There is no issue born to

them. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1.

Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the sisters of petitioner No.1 and

daughters of petitioners No.2 and 3.

4. Respondent No.2 had filed report with the Police Station

stating that, at the time of marriage her father had given 30 Tolas

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
3 Cri WP 1591-2017

gold ornaments and domestic articles like fridge, television, laptop

etc. In all her father had spent about Rs.20 to 25 lakhs on the

marriage. After marriage she went to cohabit with petitioner No.1.

She has stated that, she was treated properly for about two months

only after the marriage, but thereafter she was harassed by all the

petitioners. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the married sisters of

petitioner No.1; but they used to give phone call to petitioners No.1

and 3 daily. It is stated that, petitioner No.2 had ill-eye on her.

Petitioner No.2 runs an educational institute by name ‘Chaitanya

Vidya Mandir’. Petitioner No.1 is Head Master of the school and

petitioner No.3 is the Chairman. Petitioner No.2 had tried to outrage

the modesty of the informant. All the petitioners were asking her to

bring amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from her father in order to get an

approval to their educational institution. She was unable to fulfill the

demand, and therefore, she was driven out of the house. After her

maternal uncle and father intervened, she was left at the

matrimonial home, however at that time petitioner No.1 told her

father that, if he would give amount of Rs.8,00,000/- then only he

will allow the informant to cohabit. When she had tried to disclose

the fact about the ill-acts of petitioner No.2 to petitioners No.1 and

3, they assaulted her, took away her ornaments and driven her out

of the house. When again her relatives took her for cohabitation on

13-07-2017 at that time petitioners No.1 and 3 refused to take her

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
4 Cri WP 1591-2017

and told that petitioner No.1 want divorce. Thereafter, the informant

had lodged the FIR.

5. The petitioners have contended that, unfortunately the

marital ties between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 did not

remain peaceful and culminated into unhappy being. Several

litigations were filed by the informant and petitioner No.1 against

each other in different courts. However, they have now resolved to

bring an end to all the disputes between them. They both had filed

a joint Hindu Marriage Petition No.362 of 2017 under Section 13 (b)

of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division,

Dhule, for divorce by mutual consent, accordingly the order has

been passed. In view of amicable settlement, it is stated that, the

informant has no desire to go ahead with the report and she has no

objection to quash the proceedings. The petitioners have therefore

prayed for quashing the FIR filed against them.

6. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2

giving no objection.

7. It will not be out of place to mention here that, when the

matter was taken up by this Court on 08-02-2018 and even the

order was dictated, the parties went out of the Court and there was

dispute between them outside the court hall. Thereafter, the

respondent No.2 came inside the Court and told that, she is

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
5 Cri WP 1591-2017

withdrawing the consent, and therefore, this Court simply adjourned

the matter. The said order, that was dictated was not signed.

However today again, the respondent No.2 has filed affidavit stating

that though there was dispute on 08-02-2018, outside the Court

hall, the parties have resolved that dispute also. It is stated that,

the petitioners and respondent No.2 have tendered an unconditional

apology for the same. Now she is giving consent and expresses no

hesitation or objection for allowing the petition for quashing.

8. On both the occasions the respondent No.2 was before

this Court. It was ensured from her, whether her consent is

voluntary or not. Though she had lateron withdrawn the consent on

08-02-2018, now she has stated that the dispute is resolved. We

take the subsequent consent also as voluntarily given. The earlier

consent was withdrawn by her under some circumstances, but better

sense appears have prevailed over them.

9. It is to be noted that, the petitioner No.1 and respondent

No.2 were husband and wife. There was dispute between them but

due to the differences various proceedings have been filed by them

against each other; now it appears that, their dispute has been

resolved and they have obtained divorce by mutual consent. The

terms of their compromise are produced on record. It appears that,

they have decided to part happily, and therefore, when they have

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
6 Cri WP 1591-2017

resolved their dispute, we find this to be a fit case where we should

exercise the inherent powers of this Court. Reliance can be placed

on M/s. Shakuntala Sawhney V. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and

Ors., MANU/SC/0532/1979 : [1979] 3SCR639, wherein Hon’ble

Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in

the following words:

“The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when
parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and
weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.

37. The power to do complete justice is the very
essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It
cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a
slave to anything, except to the caution and
circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets
before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered
power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of
compassion to achieve the ends of justice.”

38. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of
the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle
down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

39. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the
soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in
turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction,
then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which
have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-
tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such
matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
7 Cri WP 1591-2017

exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in
the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that
the power is limited to such cases. There can never be
any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such
power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to
forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of
justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.”

10. Further reliance can be placed on Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and Another [2012 SCC (10) 303], wherein it is observed


“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 the 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, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by
not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The
above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case
will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast
category can be prescribed.”

11. Therefore, taking into consideration the observations

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::
8 Cri WP 1591-2017

since the FIR is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now the

dispute is settled, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence,

following order:-


1) Petition is hereby allowed.

2) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer




::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2018 21/03/2018 01:45:22 :::

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