1wp-1920-10 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1920 OF 2010. Sau. Dhanshree Shekhar Hirve ... Petitioner versus Shekhar Vasantrao Hirve and Anr ... Respondents. Mr Shriram S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr Shekhar Vasantrao Hirve , the Respondent No.1 in person present in Court. Mr H. J. Dedhia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM:­ A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATED :­ TUESDAY, 12TH OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL ORDER :­ 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is present in person. Perused the petition and material available on record. 2. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings and setting aside the impugned judgment and order, dated 22.2.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First 2wp-1920-10 Class, Cantonment Court, Pune below Exhibit­45 in Regular Criminal Case No.295/2003, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject an application filed for discharge of the accused. 3. The complaint was lodged by Shekhar Vasantrao Hirve against his wife Sau. Dhanshree Shekhar Hirve and others, which was registered at Cantonment Police Station, Pune, which gave rise to the F. I.R. No. 5/2003, complaining offence punishable under Section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code that the First Informant was cheated by the accused­petitioner and Vilas Pandurang, Sau Shobha Vilas, Pramod Pandurang, Chandrashekhar Pandurang, Umesh Pandurang and Sau. Smita who are close relatives of his wife Dhanshree, upon the accusations that they concealed the ailment suffered by the wife, as also medical treatment which she was undergoing in respect of imbalance of harmons etc. Thus, according to the First Informant, the information was deliberately withheld from him before his marriage with Sau.Dhanshree. Therefore, the accused had, in furtherance of common intention, cheated the First Informant. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the accused were charge 3wp-1920-10 sheeted. It appears that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted, initially, in the Family Court at Pune by the petitioner herein. Later there was compromise between the parties and they decided to agree for divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, the Family Court passed the decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he identifies the first informant/respondent No.1 (Sekhar Vasantrao Hirve),upon instructions from the petitioner Dhanshree who was Sekhar’s wife and after perusal of the Identity Card of Mr Sekhar, states that Respondent is physically present in the Court, as also the petitioner. When questioned, the petitioner and Respondent No.1 confirmed the fact that the decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent has been passed by the Family Court in Petition No. 294/2003 by the Family Court No.3, Pune on 2.5.2005 in view of Section 13­B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The petitioner as well as the respondent, who are present in the Court, do not dispute this fact. It is for these reasons, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that continuance of the 4wp-1920-10 criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent in the trial court would amount to abuse of the process of the law, particularly, when the parties have settled their dispute amicably and settled for divorce by mutual consent and the decree to that effect has already been passed by the competent court. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings and setting aside the impugned order whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Cantonment Court, Pune rejected an application for discharge from the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to a ruling in the case of B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Anr (2003) 4 SCC 675 in order to advance his submission that inherent powers u/s 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in relation to matrimonial disputes, particularly, considering the facts of the present case that offence punishable u/s 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. are compoundable in view of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 7. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 (para 11) the Apex Court held that while 5wp-1920-10 exercising inherent power of quashing under section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue and where in the opinion of the Court chances of securing conviction are remote and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the facts of the case, also quash the proceedings. Learned A.P.P. for the State contended that the parties may compound offence in the trial Court. 8. It is settled legal position that powers of High Court to quash criminal proceedings including FIR and/or complaint are wide and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as held in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (cited supra). 9. The above ruling are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and no fruitful purpose would be served by making the parties, continue to appear before the trial Magistrate by continuance of the prosecution since the respondent has already agreed to withdraw 6wp-1920-10 accusations and to compound the complaint against the accused. The respondent No.1 is present in the Court and when questioned, stated that he do not want to continue with the prosecution. The Respondent No.1 has also placed on record written praecipe. Same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, if the accused are made to appear before the trial Magistrate, from time to time, it would only be sheer waste of their money, time and energy at the cost of their personal occupation, even when there are no chances of conviction in the case. For all these reasons, the impugned order as well as further criminal proceedings for in RCC No.295/2003 pending before the J.M.F.C. Cantonment Court, Pune is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)