wp-2363-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2363 OF 2021

Lavesh Amar Wadhwani and Another …Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents

Mr. Mahesh Kukreja, for the Petitioners.
Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, for Respondent No. 2.
Ms. Manushree @ Ritu L. Wadhwani, the Respondent No. 2
present through Video Conferencing.

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

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 3rd JULY, 2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JULY, 2021
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

—————

JUDGMENT : (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the

consent of the counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

is fled to quash and set aside the Regular Criminal Case No.

858 of 2020 arising out of C.R. No. 689 of 2019 registered at

Sadar Bazar police station, Solapur pending on the fle of the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 1/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, in view of the

settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent

No. 2- the frst informant.

3. The factual backdrop can be stated in brief as under:

a] The marriage of the petitioner No. 1 Lavesh was

solemnized with respondent No. 2 Manushree on 10 th March,

2019. The petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.

Soon after marriage, the petitioners allegedly made unlawful

demand of money for purchasing a house at Banglore and to

fnance a business. The marital discord escalated. The

respondent No. 2 was allegedly subjected to cruelty.

Eventually, the respondent No. 2 lodged a report with Sadar

Bazar police station, Solapur against the petitioners and

Amarlal, the deceased father of petitioner No. 1, for the

Act, being PWDVA Application No. 43 of 2020, was also fled

before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Solapur.

c] The petitioners aver that, during the pendency of the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 2/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

aforesaid proceeding, with the intervention of the family

members and well wishers, the petitioners and respondent No.

2 have amicably resolved the dispute. A petition for divorce by

has been fled before the Family Court at Solapur. Hence, this

petition for quashing of the above numbered proceedings.

4. The respondent No. 2 Ms. Manushree has sworn an

affdavit. In the affdavit respondent No. 2 has made, inter alia,

the following averments:

7] I say and submit that in the said Divorce
Application I have agreed that I will give no
objection for quashing the above Regualr
Criminal Case No. 858 of 2020 in C.R. No. 689 of
2019 fled by Sadar Bazar Police station, Solapur,
Maharashtra.

8] I say and submit that I do not want to
proceed with the said Regular Criminal Case No.
858 of 2020 in C.R. No. 689 of 2019 fled against

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 3/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

the Petitioners and that I have no objection if
this Court quashes the said Regular Criminal
Case No. 858 of 2020 in C.R. No. 689 of 2019,
which is pending before the Chief Magistrate’s
Court, Solapur, Maharashtra.

10] I hereby states and submits that I am
fling this affdavit on the assumption that the
Petitioner No. 1 will attend before the Family
Court at Solapur on the next date in Family
Court Divorce Proceeding No. 117 of 2020 and
will given consent for mutual Divorce and it is
agreed between the parties that neither of the
parties will prolong their respective proceedings.

5. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30th

August, 2020 is annexed to the affdavit. Clause Nos. 4, 5 and

6 thereof read as under:

4]That, party No. 1 is giving D.D.No.000026 of
HDFC Bank, Branch Maharaj Banda, Gwalior,
MP dated 29/08/2020 of Rs. 5 lakhs to party
No. 2 for one time maintenance and
compensation after receiving the D.D. party No.
2 will not ask for any maintenance and
compensation or any other amount in this
relation in future.

5] That, any gift received by party No. 2 is
with them only beside this any other gift receive
by party No. 1 in return to party No. 2 in front of
witness.

6] That, any litigation create by party No. 2
with police or in the Court against party No. 1

and his family, will be taken back by party No. 2,
if required party No. 2 has to produce mutual
consent for that.

6. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court through

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 4/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

video conferencing. Respondent No. 2 informed the Court that

she has decided to amicably resolve the dispute on her own

volition. There is no coercion or duress. The respondent No. 2

admitted the contents of the affdavit. She submitted that the

matrimonial dispute is resolved in terms of the Memorandum

of Understanding and the assertions in the affdavit.

7. It seems that the prosecution has its genesis in the

marital discord. Eventually, with the intervention of elders and

well wishers, the parties have amicably resolved all the

disputes. They have decided to part ways. It is trite that the

High Court would be justifed in invoking the inherent

continuation of the prosecution would cause grave prejudice to

the parties. The prosecutions arising out of matrimonial

proceeding are one of the classes of cases in which the Court,

taking note of the settlement between the parties, can quash

the prosecution so as to advance the cause of securing ends of

justice, and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

8. A proftable reference in this context can be made to the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 5/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

State of Punjab1, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Supreme

Court, considered the relative scope of the provisions

exposited the power of the High Court to quash the FIR or

prosecution in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as under:

“61. …. …. …… But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly
the offences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
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, High Court may quash 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 criminal case would
put 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. In other words, the High Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid pronouncement squarely governs the

case at hand. As indicated above, the prosecution had its

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 6/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::
wp-2363-2021.doc

genesis in the matrimonial dispute. The continuation of the

prosecution, where the parties have settled all the disputes,

would serve no fruitful purpose. The possibility of the

prosecution ending in a conviction is extremely remote and

bleak. On the contrary, the continuation of the prosecution

would cause grave prejudice to the parties. Thus, to secure the

ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the

Court, we are inclined to allow the petition. Hence, the

following order.

ORDER

a] Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and

(b).

b] Regular Criminal Case No. 858 of 2020 arising out of

C.R. No. 689 of 2019 pending on the fle of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, stands quashed and set aside.

c] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 7/7

::: Uploaded on – 08/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on – 09/07/2021 03:55:02 :::