KBP 1 cr.wp.1942-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1942 OF 2011 Bharat Narsinghani and anr. ..Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2888 OF 2010 Manisha S. Narsinghani and ors. ..Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for petitioner. Ms.Babita Pandey, for respondent no.2. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. -- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15 th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent of the parties. KBP 2 cr.wp.1942-11.odt 2] These petitions are filed for quashing of FIR No.30/2010 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by respondent no.2 - Chahat Khanna, daughter of Kamal Khanna. The incident referred to in the complaint is essentially arising out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and his family members on one hand and the complainant on the other. During the pendency of the investigation, the parties have amicably settled all their matrimonial disputes and petitioner no.1 – Bharat Narsinghani and respondent no.2 – Chahat Khanna filed terms of compromise before the Family Court, Bandra in Petition No.A-2340/2008. As per the consent terms, the complainant declared that she would not precipitate the criminal case any further. As a result of the compromise arrived at between the private parties, intimation was given to the Investigating Officer about said development on 18 th May, 2011 by the complainant herself. Learned APP conceded that such intimation was received in the office of the Investigating Officer. Learned APP further accepts, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, that, inspite of the said communication, without ascertaining the factual position further, the Investigating KBP 3 cr.wp.1942-11.odt Officer proceeded to file police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prosecute the accused persons for the alleged offences. That was filed on 11 th November, 2011. Notably, accused no.3 filed subject Writ Petition on 29 th September, 2010. Indeed, respondent no.3 in the said Writ Petition has prayed for quashing of FIR on merits. However, other accused i.e.petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the first petition, after the submission of the consent terms before the Family Court, to effectuate the declaration contained therein filed the other Writ Petition in this Court on 6 th July, 2011 for quashing of FIR not only against them but also against respondent no.3. In other words, the accused persons have approached this Court and are essentially praying for quashing of FIR in view of the changed circumstances of settlement between the private parties, which has already been accepted by the Family Court as well. Learned APP, however, submits that since the Charge Sheet is filed, the matter will have to be proceeded before the concerned criminal Court. This submission, to say the least, deserves to be stated to be rejected. 3] In our opinion, as the private parties have amicably resolved all KBP 4 cr.wp.1942-11.odt their matrimonial disputes, in the fitness of the things, it is appropriate that even criminal case pending against all the petitioners, will have to be terminated which is also the agreement entered into between the private parties. Both the petitioners Bharat and Shreechand are present in the Court. Similarly, the complainant Chahat Khanna is also present in the Court. She reiterates that she is not interested in proceeding against the accused persons named in the impugned FIR. 4] In our opinion, the arrangement arrived at between the private parties is not against public policy in any manner; for which reason, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the FIR No. 13/2010 registered with Oshiwara Police Station dated 8 th August, 2010. 5] While parting, we place on record our anxiety about the manner in which the Investigating Officer has handled this matter. We are not impressed with the explanation of the learned APP, given on instructions of the Investigating Officer who is present in the Court. For, even after having been informed by the parties that they KBP 5 cr.wp.1942-11.odt have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute, he hastened to file the Charge Sheet without ascertaining the factum of settlement between the parties. It is well established position that the Police Officers are expected to investigate the matters involving matrimonial disputes with some sense of sensitivity and cannot investigate those cases in the same way as other criminal cases. 6] We further place on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant that, they had duly informed the Investigating Officer about the development, in particular, the settlement terms filed before the Family Court. Inspite of that, he hastened to file the Charge Sheet for the reasons best known to him. Whether that act of the Investigating Officer was intentional or otherwise is a matter which will have to be enquired into, departmentally. We, therefore, direct the Registry to forward copy of this order to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, to issue appropriate instructions, as may be advised and proceed in accordance with law. 7] Rule is made absolute. Accordingly, FIR No.13 of 2010 dated KBP 6 cr.wp.1942-11.odt 8 th January, 2010 registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai and all steps taken on the basis of the said FIR including the Charge Sheet and criminal case pending against the accused are quashed in terms of this order. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]