SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vikram S/O. Vinayak Patole And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 March, 2019

(1) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3943 OF 2017

Vikram Vinayak Patole others. Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents.

***
Mr. M.L. Wankhede, Advocate for the applicants.
Smt. P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Dated : 28 March 2019.

ORDER :-

. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties. By way of present Application, the applicants pray for

quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.I-

56/2013, dated 05.03.2016 registered with Sadar Bazar Police

Station, Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as

Charge Sheet No.77/2013 dated 20.04.2013 filed before the

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::
(2) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna tot he extent of

the applicants and vide prayer clause C-1 the applicants prayed

for quashment of the proceedings filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2

in R.C.C. No.356/2013, Criminal Misc. Application No.435/2013,

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1070/2015, R.C.C. No.448/2001

and Summary Case No.1972/2015.

2. On 3rd September 2018 it was submitted before this

Court that the parties have settled the dispute and terms of

settlement, reduced in writing, would be placed before this Court.

At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties, the application was adjourned.

3. Today the learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties i.e. Mr. Wankhede and Mr. Bajaj invited our

attention to the compilation of the documents placed on record.

The first document is “Compromise Terms and conditions,

Undertaking”. Perusal of this document shows that the parties

though it fit to withdraw the proceedings on some basic terms,

such as seeking consent divorce decree from the competent Court,

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::
(3) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

payment of an amount of rs. 7,51,000/- as one time and full and

final settlement of all the claimants for maintenance in the past,

present and future. The amount is said to be deposited in the

Family Court on 08.02.2019. A receipt issued to that effect dated

15.02.2019 is placed on record in the compilation at Exhibit-R3.

It is further stated in the said document that custody of minor

daughter Ishika shall be with respondent No.2 i.e. mother and

applicant No.6 does not claim visitation rights or custody and

respondent No.2 shall not have any claim of any nature

whatsoever, financial claims or movable or immovable property in

future against applicant No.6.

4. The order of learned Judge of Family Court,

Aurangabad dated 08.02.2019 is also placed on record, wherein

the learned Judge observed that the application was filed seeking

consent decree of divorce and as such necessary order is passed by

the learned Judge of the Family Court.

5. Our attention was also invited to the statement made

in the petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::
(4) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

mutual consent, more particularly at Clause-VIII in para-3 of the

Application, which reads thus :

“That after passing of the order in the present
case, applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 shall
have no claim or grievance against each other.
The parties also declare that they shall not file
any litigation either civil or criminal against
each other in future, on any pretext
whatsoever”.

It is then submitted that the statement was made in

the Application in Clause-II, para-3 that applicant No.1 will be

entitled to withdraw the said amount after passing of the order of

divorce decree. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties then

submitted that the parties have mutually decided that respondent

No.2 would be entitled to withdraw the amount after disposal of

the present Application i.e. after giving full stop to all the

proceedings.

6. In view of the terms of the compromise arrived at

between the parties, it is clear that the parties are parting with

their ways with an understanding and are ready to abide by the

terms of the compromise document. In view of the above referred

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::
(5) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

facts, we may conveniently draw a support from the judgment of

the Hon’ble the Apex Court oftenly quoted in the matter of “B.S.

Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another” [ 2003

ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (SC)]. It could be useful for our purposes if

we refer to some observations of the Hon’ble the Apex Court, as

below:

“The question that falls for determination in the
instant case is about the ambit of the inherent
powers of the High Courts under Section 482,
Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and
ambit of power under Section 482 has been
examined by this Court in catena of earlier
decisions but in the present case that is required to
be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes.
The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the
present case have been on considerable increase in
recent times resulting in filing of complaints by
the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not
only against the husband but his other family
members also. When such matters are resolved
either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial
home or mutual separation of husband and wife
and also mutual settlement of other pending
disputes as a result whereof both sides approach
the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of
the criminal proceedings or the First Information
Report or complaint filed by the wife under
Sections 498A and 406 IPC, can the prayer be
declined on the ground that since the offences are
non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code
and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::
(6) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint”.

Considering the scope of inherent power of
quashing under Section 482, this Court held that
in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes
to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It
was ob served that in a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature
of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the
High Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice and that the ends of justice are
higher than the ends of mere law though justice
had got to be administered according to laws
made by the legislature.

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”.

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of

prayer Clauses ‘C’ and ‘C-1’ and disposed of accordingly.

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::

(7) Cri.Appl. No.3943/2017

8. Needless to state that, in view of the statement made

in the petition seeking decree for divorce by consent and as

submitted before this Court that on disposal of the application the

respondent No.2 would be at liberty to withdraw the amount, as

such, in view of the disposal of this application there is no

impediment for respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount

deposited in the Family Court, Aurangabad.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

vdd/

::: Uploaded on – 30/03/2019 31/03/2019 00:30:15 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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