SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tejas Suresh Patani And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 October, 2018

Apl-323/18.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2018

Tejas Suresh Patani and Others. ..Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra Another. ..Respondents.

Mr. Pramod Pandey for the Applicants.
Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Jennifer Michael I/b Alisha Pinto for Respondent No. 2.

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

Date : October 29, 2018.

P. C. :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants,
the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned PP for the
Respondent-State.

2. By this application filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1908, the Applicants are seeking to quash and set
aside the FIR bearing CR. No. 34 of 2017 registered with Santacruz
Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under sections
498A, 406, 504, 506, 34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 1 st
February 2015. Rest of the Applicants are the relations of Applicant
No. 1. The matrimonial discord between the parties gave rise to filing

patilsr 1/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:03 :::
Apl-323/18.

of civil as well as criminal proceedings against each other and the
present FIR is one of them.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties
submitted that pending investigation into above FIR, the parties have
amicably settled their disputes and filed memorandum of settlement
before the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai in
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1194 of 2017 [copy of which is
annexed at page No. 43 of the present application]. Counsel for both
sides made a statement across the bar that the terms of
memorandum of settlement are complied with; the marriage between
Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 is accordingly dissolved by grant
of decree of divorce by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai vide its
judgment and order dated 6th April 2018 in Petition No.F-2456 of 2017.
Cousnel further submitted that in terms of the understanding arrived
at between the parties, now they have approached this Court for
quashing the subject FIR by consent.

5. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in
this Court on 2nd October 2018 wherein in paragraph 4 she has given
her no objection to quash the FIR. Respondent No.2 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

patilsr 2/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:03 :::
Apl-323/18.

initiated by her against the Applicants.

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

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

patilsr 3/ 4

::: Uploaded on – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:03 :::
Apl-323/18.

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.

8. 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 – 02/11/2018 03/11/2018 00:13:03 :::

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