SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Viveck Nayyan Parekh And Ors vs Mikita Viveck Parekh And Anr on 21 September, 2018

Apl-705/18.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 705 OF 2018

Viveck Nayyan Parekh and Others. ..Applicants.
Versus
Mikita Viveck Parekh Another. ..Respondents.

Mr. V. R. Sutaria for the Applicants.
Mr. Ashok Bhate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

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

Date : September 21, 2018.

P. C. :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, the learned
counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the Respondent-
State. By the present application, the jurisdiction of this Court under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 is invoked by the
Applicants, seeking to quash and set aside the proceedings of criminal
case bearing CC No.1063/PW/2016 pending on the file of learned
JMFC, Vashi, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The said case has arisen
from an FIR bearing CR No. 216 of 2016 registered with Vashi Police
Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 herein, wherein the
allegations are that the Applicants have committed an offence
punishable under sections 323, 406, 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

2. Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 are the husband

patilsr 1/ 4
Digitally signed by
Sachin Sachin Ramchandra
Ramchandra Patil
Date: 2018.09.25
Patil 12:28:09 +0530
Apl-705/18.

and wife. Rest of the Applicants are relatives of Applicant No. 1 and
in-laws of Respondent No. 1. The matrimonial discord between the
parties gave rise to the filing of various proceedings by the parties
against one another and the present proceeding is one of them.

3. the learned counsel for the respective parties submitted
that during the pendency of above criminal proceeding, 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, the
present application is filed for quashing the above criminal
proceedings, by consent of Respondent No. 1. they submitted that
accordingly parties have filed consent terms before the Family Court
at Thane in Marriage Petition No. 460 of 2018. Copy of the consent
terms is placed on record at Exhibit-“B” page no .19 to the petition.
Under the consent the consent terms, the parties have agreed to
dissolve their marriage by mutual consent resorting to the provisions
of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Applicant No. 1 has
agreed to pay an amount of Rs.30 lakhs to Respondent No. 1 towards
the full and final settlement of all her dues. The statement is made at
the bar that this amount is alreadypaid to Respondent No. 1 by
Applicant No. 1.

4. Respondent No. 1 has accordingly filed an affidavit
dated 20th September 2018. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, she

patilsr 2/ 4
Apl-705/18.

has given no objection to quash the subject criminal proceedings
against the Applicants.

5. Respondent No.1 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 criminal proceedings initiated by her against
the Applicants. She also submitted that she has received an amount
of Rs.30 lakhs from Applicant No. 1 as the marriage between them is
agreed to be dissolved by mutual consent.

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.

patilsr 3/ 4
Apl-705/18.

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
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 criminal proceedings pending except ultimately burdening the
Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

8. In the light of principles laid down by the Apex Court in
the aforesaid decisions 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 criminal
proceedings. Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).

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

patilsr 4/ 4

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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