SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Paresh Suresh Pahuja And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 March, 2019

Apl-1072/18.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1072 OF 2018

Paresh Suresh Pahuja and Others. ..Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra Another. ..Respondents.

Mr. Ashok K. Goel I/b Vikram R. Goel for the Applicants.
Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Surin Usgaonkar for Respondent No. 2.

Coram : RANJIT MORE
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

Date : March 14, 2019.

P. C. :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The application is filed seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR. No.9

of 2017 registered with Badnra Police Station, Mumbai at the

instance of Respondent No.1 against the Applicants for the offence

punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No.2 got married in

the year 2011. rest of the Applicants are the relations of Applicant

No.1 and in-laws of Respondent No.2. The matrimonial dispute

between the parties gave rise to the filing of civil as well as

criminal proceedings by the parties against one another and the

present FIR is one of them.

patilsr 1/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into

above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members,

friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their

differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the

understanding arrived at between them, present application is

filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No. 2.

They further submitted that in a proceeding before the Family

Court, at Badnra, Mumbai, namely, Petition No.F/14209/2017, the

parties have filed consent terms and in consonance with the said

consent terms, the Family Court has passed decree of divorce

under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 6 th

Mach 2019. In paragraph 3 and 4 she has given no objection to

quash the subject FIR. Respondent No.3 is personally present

before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted

that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without

there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further

confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIR

initiated by her against the Applicants.

5. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana

patilsr 2/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.

reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of

settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can

be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in

terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the

Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are

reproduced herein below:

“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punishing a husband
and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands
of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter
productive and would act against interests of women
and against the object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of
inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian
Penal Code.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this

Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra

[2008(5) LJ.Soft 46].

6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been

patilsr 3/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::
Apl-1072/18.

amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of

complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in

nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime.

The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the

society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs.

State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would

be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately

burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

7. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder

Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the

considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the

subject FIR. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (a).

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

patilsr 4/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 16/03/2019 16/03/2019 22:34:41 :::

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