ABC v. State of Maharashtra

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Ambarnath Police Station Ambarnath, Dist Thane.

2. XYZ...RESPONDENTS... Appearances- Mr. Dilip B. Shinde for Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Haridas i/by. Mr S.P. Mhatre for Respondent No. 2. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State. Respondent No. 2 is present.... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON: 31st MARCH 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON: 5th APRIL, 2021.

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. At the outset it is required to be noted that since the allegations against the petitioner are in respect of the alleged sexual assault and 2nd respondent is victim, the identity of the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 needs to be concealed, therefore, the petitioner is referred to as “ABC” and Respondent No. 2 as “XYZ”. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly. Bhagyawant Punde

2. This petition is filed praying therein to quash the FIR No. I-0616 of 2019, registered with Ambarnath Police Station under sections 376, 313 and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and therefore, the FIR I-0616 of 2019, registered with Ambarnath Police Station under sections 376, 313 and 406 of Indian Penal Code may be quashed.

4. The 2nd respondent has filed affidavit. She is present in the Court. She stated that, it is her voluntary act to enter into the settlement and therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned APP invites our attention to the allegations in the FIR and submits that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner has not only committed offence punishable under Section 376 but even under Section 313 of the IPC. It is submitted that outcome of the impugned FIR has great impact upon the society, therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[1], Parbatbhai Aaahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Ors Versus State of Gujarat And Anr[2] and State of M.P. Vs.Laxmi Narayan and Ors[3], the prayer for quashing FIR may not be entertained.

6. We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions. With the able assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR and original record pertaining to the aforesaid FIR.

7. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the law laid down by the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra):-

57. 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; (i) 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. [Underlines added]

8. The law laid down in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has been further reiterated in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra) and State of M.P. Vs.Laxmi Narayan and Ors (supra).

9. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under: