SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mayur Shantilal Motani vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

1/5 28.1 APL-1286-2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1286 OF 2019

Mayur Shantilal Motani …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Pranav Avhad a/w. Ms. Darshana Naval i/by. White and Brief
Advocates and Solicitors for applicant.
Mr. Harsh Buch i/by. MZM Legal for Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing.
Mrs. A.S. Pai, PP for State.

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

DATE : 17th JULY, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J]:

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

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This application is filed with the following substantive

prayer:-

a) Allow this Petition under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code by quashing
the FIR No. 38 of 2016 dated 21.01.2016
lodged under
section 498A, 418, 419,
406, 354(d), 323, 504, 507, 509, 506 of
the IPC and
section 66C of the IT Act,
2000 in Pant Nagar Police Station and
the Charge-sheet filed culminating in
PW/944/2016 before the Hon’ble 31st
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vikhroli;

Bhagyawant Punde

::: Uploaded on – 17/07/2021 18/07/2021 04:39:51 :::
2/5 28.1 APL-1286-2019.doc

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant and

Respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the applicant and 2 nd

respondent have amicably settled the dispute and the 2 nd

respondent has filed affidavit thereby giving consent for quashing

the impugned FIR and chargesheet.

4. Respondent No. 2 is present before us through video

conferencing. We have interacted with her. She stated that it is her

voluntary act without any coercion to enter into the amicable

settlement and give consent for quashing the impugned FIR and

chargesheet.

5. Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit. Paragraphs 1 to

5 of the said affidavit read as under:-

1. I say that I had filed an FIR
bearing C.R. No. 38 of 2016 dated
21 January 2016 against the Applicant/
Original Accused; mentioned in the cause
title above; lodged under
Sections 498A,
418, 419, 406, 354(d), 323, 504, 507,
509, 506 of the IPC and Section 66C of
the IT Act, 2000 with the Pant Nagar
Police Station.

2. I say that subsequent to the
aforesaid FIR, the said Police station filed
the Chargesheet before the Ld. 31st

Bhagyawant Punde

::: Uploaded on – 17/07/2021 18/07/2021 04:39:51 :::
3/5 28.1 APL-1286-2019.doc

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vikhroli under
Sections 498A, 418, 419,
406, 354(d), 323, 504, 507, 509, 506 of
the IPC and
Section 66C of the IT Act,
2000 in case bearing no. 944/PW/2016.

3. I state that the Applicant/Original
Accused and I have mutually resolved all
our differences, reached an amicable
settlement and dissolved our marriage by
filing consent terms in Petition A-3053 of
2017 before the Hon’ble Family Court at
Bandra.

4. I say that in light of dissolution of
our marriage and resolution of differences
between us, I am consenting to quash the
criminal proceedings and have no
objection if the subject FIR is quashed
and set aside.

5. I say that all the contents
mentioned hereinabove are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, and I am making this Affidavit out
of my own free will and without any
pressure or coercion in the Criminal
Application No. 1286 of 2019 filed by the
Applicant/Original Accused herein to
quash the said FIR bearing C.R. No. 38 of
2016 dated 21 January 2016 lodged
under
Sections 498A, 418, 419, 406,
354(d), 323, 504, 507, 509, 506 of the IPC
and
Section 66C of the IT Act, 2000 with
the Pant Nagar Police Station against the
Applicant/Original Accused.

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and

2nd respondent has filed the affidavit thereby giving consent for

Bhagyawant Punde

::: Uploaded on – 17/07/2021 18/07/2021 04:39:51 :::
4/5 28.1 APL-1286-2019.doc

quashing the impugned FIR and chargesheet, no fruitful purpose

will be served by continuing the further proceedings of

PW/944/2016 pending before the 31 st Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vikhroli, arising out of FIR bearing C.R. 38 of 2016,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 418,

419, 406, 354(d), 323, 504, 507, 509, 506 of the IPC and Section

66C of the IT Act, 2000

7. 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

resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High

Court 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

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

::: Uploaded on – 17/07/2021 18/07/2021 04:39:51 :::
5/5 28.1 APL-1286-2019.doc

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 guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure

the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any

court.

8. In view of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to secure

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

Court, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the

application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which is

reproduced hereinabove in para no. 2.

9. Rule made absolute to above extent. The application

stands disposed of.

10. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

order.

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

Bhagyawant Punde

::: Uploaded on – 17/07/2021 18/07/2021 04:39:51 :::

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