Advocates:
['DOKE KISHOR R', 'COPY SERVED ON P P', '', 'MURGE ESTLING S']

38-CriWP-61-2022

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

38 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 2022

UMESH S/O DEVIDAS KALE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

.....

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Doke Kishor R.

APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Estling S. Murge

…..

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 21^st FEBRUARY, 2022

PER COURT:-

1.

Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

2.

The petitioners-original accused are seeking quashing of the

proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 105 of 2019 pending before the

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Georai for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the

ground that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for

respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived at an amicable

settlement. Petitioner no.1-husband and respondent no.2-wife have

38-CriWP-61-2022

-2-

decided to reside separately and do not want to continue with the

relations. They have already filed proceedings bearing H.M.P. No.

116/2021 for divorce by mutual consent and the said petition is

pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. They both are

intending to marry different persons of their choice. It is further

agreed and the same is also mentioned in the pending H.M.P. seeking

a decree of divorce by mutual consent that petitioner no.1-husband

shall pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent no.2 towards her

alimony and also agreed to return her stree dhan. It is further agreed

between the parties that petitioner no.1-husband will get the custody

of the children and he will take care of both of his children. Learned

counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.2 has filed an

affidavit-in-reply to that effect. Respondent no.2 is now not willing to

prosecute the FIR and the criminal proceedings arising out of the said

FIR.

4.

We have also heard learned APP for the respondent State.

5.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint,

the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and also the

copy of H.M.P. No. 116/2021 pending before the C.J.S.D., Beed for

divorce by mutual consent. It appears that the parties have arrived at

38-CriWP-61-2022

-3-

amicable settlement and they have decided to end their marital

relations permanently.

6.

In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court in para 48 has

referred the view taken by the five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007)

4 CTC 769 and particularly quoted para 21 and referred the

guidelines framed by the five-Judge Bench for quashing of the

proceedings on the basis of settlement. Guideline under clause

21(a) which is relevant for the present discussion reads as under :

“21.….. (a) Cases arising from matrimonial

discord, even if other offences are introduced for

aggravation of the case.”

The Supreme Court in paragraph no.61 of the judgment of

Gian Singh (supra) has made following observations :-

“61.The position that emerges from the above

discussion can be summarised thus: the power of

the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding

or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power

38-CriWP-61-2022

-4-

given to a criminal court for compounding the

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent

power is of wide plenitude with no statutory

limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with

the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to

secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of

the process of any Court. In what cases power