907-wp-6445-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6445 OF 2019
Manglam Roongta Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra Anr. …Respondents
……
Mr.S.P. Rajepandhare i/b. Ms. Purna C. Patnaik for the Petitioners.
Mr.F.R.Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Jyotiram S. Yadav for Respondent No.2.
……
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE
V.G.BISHT, JJ.
DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2020
JUDGMENT (PER: S. S. SHINDE, J.)
1. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2
submits that he has not yet filed Vakalatnama. He has tendered
across the bar Vakalatnama and the same is taken on record.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners
seek to quash First Information Report No. 0108 of 2019 (for short,
Trupti 1/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
“FIR”) dated 3rd April, 2019 registered with Kopar Khairane Police
Station, Navi Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioners have served respondent No.2 by private
service. Respondent No.2 has filed her appearance.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and
respondent No.2 jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and to that effect the consent terms have already been
filed in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invites our
attention to the said consent terms, which are placed on record in
compilation of this petition from page Nos. 43 to 63.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has
tendered across the bar a copy of the affidavit dated 18 th March,
2020. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
Trupti 2/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/202020/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
8. On the basis of grounds taken in the petition and the affidavit
tendered today so also other affidavits placed on record from time to
time, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent
No.2 pray for quashing the FIR, which is impugned in the present
petition.
9. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds taken in
the petition, annexures thereto and the terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties before the Court of Principal Judge
Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA
Petition No. 82 of 2019. In paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 of the affidavit
filed by respondent No.2, it is stated thus :
“1. I say that I am residing at the aforesaid address along
with my family i.e. Father Rakesh Ramesh Gupta, Mother
Prity Rakesh Gupta Brother Shitesh Rakesh Gupta. I
say that I have filed Complaint against the Petitioners at
the Koparkherne Police Station, Navi Mumbai on basis of
which F.I.R.No. 0108/2019 for offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 406 34 of Indian Penal Code has been
registered.
2. I say that, the I and Petitioner with the help of our
family members amicably settled the dispute vide
Settlement Deed dt. 19/09/2019 whereby I and
Trupti 3/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
Petitioner have agreed to withdraw various litigations
filed before various Court on some terms and condition
including the present FIR bearing no. 0108/2019
registered for offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 406 34 of
IPC at Koperkherne Police Station, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
3. I am not intending to proceed with the matter and
agree to withdraw the Complainant/ FIR with own free
consent in pursuance of Settlement Deed dt.
19/09/2019.
4. I say that I am not intending to proceed with the
matter and I am not having any grievance/ complaint
against the present Petitioners, accused in the said case
and I am ready to withdraw the said proceeding.
5. I am executing present Affidavit with my free own
consent and without influence and pressure of any
person to support the Criminal Writ Petition under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by
Manglam Roongta, Sushil Kumar Roongta, Manju
Roongta Surbhi Garg i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1,2,3 4 for
quashing proceeding of F.I.R. No. 0108/2019 registered
with Koparkherne Police Station, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
10. During the course of hearing of this petition, petitioner No.1 is
present and he has handed over a Demand Draft of Rs. 15,00,000/-
Trupti 4/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
(Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) drawn in the name of respondent No.2 to
his Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
handed over the said Demand Draft to learned Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 and in turn the same is handed over to respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 has verified the contents of the said Demand
Draft and amount mentioned therein and also acknowledged the
receipt of the said Demand Draft.
11. In the light of statements made across the bar by learned
Counsel appearing for respective parties and the affidavit filed by
respondent No.2 so also other material placed on record, it is crystal
clear that respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations
made in the FIR since the settlement is arrived at between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 before the Family Court, Delhi. It
is also stated in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that she is not
interested to continue further proceedings arising out of the said FIR
and she has no objection to quash FIR No. 0108 of 2019 for offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code registered with Koper Khairane Police Station, Navi Mumbai. It
is also stated in the affidavit that the act of respondent No.2 to enter
Trupti 5/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
into compromise is her voluntary act, without any force.
12. Since the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably
settled their dispute as averred in the affidavit filed by respondent
No.2 and respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing FIR No.
0108 of 2019 registered with Kopar Khairane Police Station, Navi
Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, further continuation of proceedings arising
out of aforementioned crime would be exercised in futility and abuse
of the process of the Court.
13. 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
resolves their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Trupti 6/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
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 guidance engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court.
14. In the light of discussion hereinabove and in order to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court,
we are inclined to allow the petition. In the result, FIR No. 0108 of
2019 registered with Kopar Khairane Police Station, Navi Mumbai
for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
Trupti 7/8
::: Uploaded on – 20/03/202020/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
907-wp-6445-2019.doc
15. Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition is allowed to
above extent and stands disposed of accordingly.
16. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
(V.G.BISHT, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)Trupti 8/8
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2020 20/03/2020 20:58:26 :::
