1 937 appln 3225-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

937 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3225 OF 2021

BHAVIK NITIN RANIGA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhosle Abhaysinh K.

APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. S. S. Dande

Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. S. G. Shinde

….

CORAM :

V. K. JADHAV AND

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 13/04/2022.

....

P. C. :

1.

Leave to insert the case number and the court before whom

the case is pending in prayer clause "C".

2.

Heard fnally with consent of the parties at admission stage.

3.

Applicant, is seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 386 of

2022, registered with Pundliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad, for

the offence punishable under Sections 67 and 67-A of the

Information Technology Act and also the proceeding arises out of

the same crime bearing RCC No. 1916 of 2021, pending before IVth

Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad on the ground that

the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

2 937 appln 3225-21

4.

The applicant had allegedly transmitted the obscene material

in the electronic form. The applicant has allegedly forwarded the

obscene photographs of the wife of the informant from Facebook

account of his father to the Facebook account of the informant.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.2 submit that the parties have arrived

at amicable settlement due to intervention of elderly members of

the family, collegemate and the others. The learned counsel

submits that the parties buried their hatchet and have decided to

live peacefully in future. Learned counsel for respondent no.2

submits that the respondent no.2 informant has also fled his

consent affdavit so also the victim (wife of the respondent no.2

informant) has also fled her consent affdavit. They have decided

to keep harmony between each other to enable them to live with

peace and love. Now they have no grudge against each other.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the victim submits that

respondent no.2 and his wife are not interested in prosecuting the

complaint.

6.

We have also heard the learned APP for respondent no.1-

State. Learned APP, on instructions in writing from the

investigating offcer, submits that there are no antecedents.

3 937 appln 3225-21

7.

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

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in para 61, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has made the 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 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. : (1) to secure the ends of

justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any

court. In what cases power to quash the criminal

proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where

the offender and the victim have settled their dispute

would depend on the facts and circumstances of each

case and no category can be prescribed. However, before

exercise of such power, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous

and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like

murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fttingly quashed

even though the victim or victim’s family and th