SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manglam Roongta And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 March, 2020

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 :::

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