In cases of compromise, continuation of the criminal case would result in great prejudice: Bombay High Court
Offences arising out of matrimony are personal in nature and the parties are seeking to resolve their entire dispute. In case of compromise between the husband and wife, the possibility of conviction would be remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would result in great prejudice and/or injustice. A division bench of S.S. SHINDE &amp; ABHAY AHUJA, JJ; while adjudicating the matter in Yuvraj Raman Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra; [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2053 OF 2021] dealt with the issue of whether to proceed with a criminal proceeding when there is a conciliation between the parties. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 10th January, 2017, as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, as differences arose between the parties, divorce petition was filed before the Family Court at Bandra, which was later on converted into mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is submitted that during the pendency of the criminal matter, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and have decided to dissolve their marriage by fling consent terms dated 3rd April, 2021 before the Family Court at Bandra upon the terms and conditions contained therein. The respondent filed an affidavit stating “I say that, during the pendency of these proceedings before the Hon’ble Family Court and the Hon’ble Magistrate Court, I and the Petitioners have arrived at an amicable settlement with regard to the property and have entered into a consent terms which is fled before the Hon’ble Family Court at Bandra on 3rd April, 2021 (“Consent Terms”). I say that I repeat, reiterate and confirm that I want to amicably resolve the matter and bring an end to the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR. I further state, that the pending Marriage Petition filed by the Petitioner No.1 is now converted into Mutual Consent Petition on the basis of the Consent Terms fled.”
 on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 1 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2053 OF 2021Yuvraj Raman Jadhav & Ors.… PetitionersVs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents Ms. Anushka Shreshtha for the Petitioners.Mr.J.P. Yagnik APP for the Respondent State.Mr. Jayesh Bhosle for Respondent No.2.Mr. Yuvraj R. Jadhav Petitioner No.1 present through V.C. Mrs. Madhuri JadhavRespondentNo.2 present through V.C. CORAM :S.S. SHINDE &ABHAY AHUJA JJ.DATE :1ST JUNE 2021(VACATION COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)JUDGMENT :1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard withthe consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.2.By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia the Petitioners are seeking to quash FIR being C.R. No.256 of2019 registered on 19th June 2019 by Vikhroli Police Station atMugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 2 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odtMumbai under Sections 498(A) 406 504 323 34 of the IndianPenal Code and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at theinstance of Respondent No.2. 3.Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were husband andwife whose marriage was solemnized on 10th January 2017 as perHindu rites and rituals. However as differences arose between theparties divorce petition was fled before the Family Court atBandra which was later on converted into mutual consent divorcepetition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 4.It is submitted that during the pendency of the criminalmatter Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have settled theirmatrimonial dispute amicably and have decided to dissolve theirmarriage by fling consent terms dated 3rd April 2021 before theFamily Court at Bandra in Petition No.A 6419 upon theterms and conditions contained therein which is annexed asExhibit B to the Petition. 5.Today we have received copy of the affdavit dated 26thApril 2021 fled by Respondent No.2 stating as under : Mugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 3 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odt“4.I state that the Petitioner No.1 had approachedHon’ble Family Court at Bandra vide MarriagePetition A No.6419 seeking divorce with theRespondent No.2. Based on the FIR a case has beenregistered against the Petitioners at the Hon’bleMagistrate Court at Vikhroli Mumbai bearing CaseNo.959 PW 2020. I say that during the pendencyof these proceedings before the Hon’ble FamilyCourt and the Hon’ble Magistrate Court I and thePetitioners have arrived at an amicable settlementwith regard to the property and have entered into aconsent terms which is fled before the Hon’bleFamily Court at Bandra on 3rd April 2021(“Consent Terms”). A Copy of the Consent Termshas been annexed to the Petition. 5.I say that the Consent Terms is fled in theproceedings before the Hon’ble Family Court. I saythat all the pending disputes between thePetitioners and I have been amicably resolved bythe execution of the Consent Terms. I further saythat pursuant to the execution of the ConsentTerms I have no claims of any nature whatsoeveragainst the Petitioners. I state that the Consentterms refects full fnal and binding settlementarrived between all the concerned parties and thatno dispute is subsisting between the Petitionersand me as on date.6.I say that I repeat reiterate and confrm that Iwant to amicably resolve the matter and bring anend to the criminal proceedings emanating fromthe FIR. I further state that the pending MarriagePetition fled by the Petitioner No.1 is nowconverted into Mutual Consent Petition on thebasis of the Consent Terms fled.Mugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 4 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odt7.I say that I am not under any duress coercion orundue infuence of any manner whatsoever eitherdirectly or indirectly and that all that is statedhereinabove is out of my free will.8.I say that I am given to understand theimplications of all that is stated hereinabove and inview of the amicable settlement I have no objectionif the Petition is allowed by this Hon’ble Courtpursuant to which the FIR No.2519 dated19.06.2019 registered against the Petitioners atVikhroli Police Station Mumbai for offence underSections 498(A) 406 504 323 34 of Indian PenalCode and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act andCriminal Case bearing 959 PW 2020 pendingbefore Ld. 50th Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court atVikhroli Mumbai is quashed.”6.Considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute which is sought to be amicably resolved we deem it appropriate toseek guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Another10Supreme Court Cases 303]. Paragraph 57 of the said decisionappropriately summarises the principles applicable to suchsituations which is quoted as under : “57.The position that emerges from the abovediscussion can be summarised thus: the power ofthe High Court in quashing a criminal proceedingor FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherentMugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 5 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odtjurisdiction is distinct and different from thepower given to a criminal court for compoundingthe offences under Section 320 of the Code.Inherent power is of wide plenitude with nostatutory limitation but it has to be exercised inaccord with the guideline engrafted in such powerviz to secure the ends of justice ortoprevent abuse of the process of any Court. In whatcases power to quash the criminal proceeding orcomplaint or F.I.R may be exercised where theoffender and victim have settled their disputewould depend on the facts and circumstances ofeach case and no category can be prescribed.However before exercise of such power the HighCourt must have due regard to the nature andgravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offencesof mental depravity or offences like murder rape dacoity etc. cannot be fttingly quashed eventhough the victim or victim’s family and theoffender have settled the dispute. Such offencesare not private in nature and have serious impacton society. Similarly any compromise betweenthe victim and offender in relation to the offencesunder special statutes like Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacityetc cannot provide for any basis for quashingcriminal proceedings involving such offences. Butthe criminal cases having overwhelmingly andpre dominatingly civil favour stand on differentfooting for the purposes of quashing particularlythe offences arising from commercial fnancial mercantile civil partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out ofmatrimony relating to dowry etc. or the familydisputes where the wrong is basically private orMugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 6 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odtpersonal in nature and the parties have resolvedtheir entire dispute. In this category of cases High Court may quash criminal proceedings if inits view because of the compromise between theoffender and victim the possibility of convictionis remote and bleak and continuation of criminalcase would put accused to great oppression andprejudice and extreme injustice would be causedto him by not quashing the criminal case despitefull and complete settlement and compromisewith the victim. In other words the High Courtmust consider whether it would be unfair orcontrary to the interest of justice to continue withthe criminal proceeding or continuation of thecriminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compromisebetween the victim and wrongdoer and whetherto secure the ends of justice it is appropriate thatcriminal case is put to an end and if the answer tothe above question(s) is in affrmative the HighCourt shall be well within its jurisdiction to quashthe criminal proceeding.” 7.This case involves offences arising out of matrimonyand is basically private or personal in nature and the parties areseeking to resolve their entire dispute. Also because of thecompromise between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 thepossibility of conviction would be remote and bleak andcontinuation of the criminal case would result in great prejudiceand or injustice.Mugdha on 02 06 2021 on 22 03 7 7 Judgment WP 2053 21.odt8.Therefore considering the settlement and compromisebetween Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 we are inclined toallow the Petition in terms of prayer clausewhich reads thus : “a.That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and setaside the FIR No.2519 registered byVikhroli Police Station at Mumbai under Sections498(A) 406 504 323 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act dated19.06.2019 and Criminal Case No.959 PW 2020and pending before Ld. 31st MetropolitanMagistrate’s Court at Vikhroli Mumbai andfurther be pleased to discharge the Petitionersfrom C.C. No.2519 under Sections 498(A) 406 504 323 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act.”9.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall beno order as to costs. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.(ABHAY AHUJA J.)(S.S. SHINDE J.)Mugdha 