ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the applicants, leave to amend granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.
4. Learned APP Mr. V.D. Rakh accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale accepts notice upon Rule for respondent no.2.
5. By the present application filed by the applicants (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have prayed that Charge Sheet No. 150/2010, dated 1-11-2010, submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, in S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011), in respct of Crime No. 278/2010, dated 23-10-2010, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur (Taluka & District : Latur), for the offences punishable under Section 354, read with Section 34 of IPC, and also regarding offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, against the applicants, at the instance of the the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 herein, be quashed and set aside.
6. The complainant i.e. respondent no.2 herein filed the FIR against the applicants herein on 24th October 2010, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 354, read with Section 34 of IPC, and also regarding offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It is alleged in the said complaint that the complainant is resident of Swami Samarth Nagar, Latur (Taluka & District : Latur) and she is residing in the building of one Sunita Rokade on rent and her father was expired about 5 years back. She alleged in the said FIR that the applicant no.7, namely, Shivkanya Shinde @ Swati Kamble had instigated her on the relevant day i.e. 23rd October 2010 and made her to sit in jeep bearing No. MH-24/S-2786 belonging to applicant nos.1 to 6, and while taking the complainant by the said jeep, the applicant no.1 Abdul Sattar held hand of the complainant and pressed her breast and thereby outraged her modesty. Accordingly, FIR was registered at C.R. No. 278/2010 with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, against the applicants herein.
7. During the investigation, spot panchanama and recovery panchanama were recorded, as well as, statements of witness were also recorded. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet bearing No. 150/2010 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, on 1-11-2010 along with investigation papers, in S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011). Hence, the applicants have preferred the present application for quashing the charge sheet as well as Sessions Trial under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the grounds mentioned in the present application, contending that the impugned charge sheet is nothing but a positive attempt to involve the applicants in a false and concocted criminal case, and statements of prosecution witnesses are stereotype and seems to have been made with a positive attempt to frame the applicants in a false criminal case, and also contending that the charge sheet is abuse of process of law and attempt to malign the image of applicant no.1 and others. It is also contended that the charge sheet pertain to an imaginary incident, and prima facie it is a hushed up and hasty investigation and even if charge sheet is taken up at its face value and accepted in its entirety, same does not disclose any offence or make out any case as against the applicants, and hence, applicants have prayed that the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. The respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant, namely, Anushka d/o. Sushil Jadhav, has filed affidavit in reply on 28th July 2011, which has been signed by her and verified by her, as well as, Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale has signed thereon. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply, that after registration of crime, all the applicants were arrested by the investigating agency and subsequently all the applicants were released on bail. It is further stated that the investigation is complete and charge sheet is already filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, in connection with Crime No. 278 of 2010, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur. It is further stated in the said affidavit in reply, that the respondent no.2 is unmarried and the allegations and contentions of the complainant in the complaint bearing Crime No. 278/2010 is likely to hamper and destroy the future of family and her further social life. It is also stated in the said affidavit in reply, that if the proceedings of S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (in connection with Crime No. 278/2010) are permitted to continue, then it would destroy the family life as well as social status of respondent no.2, and not only that, future life of respondent no.2 also would be destroyed, as well as, her future matrimonial life also would be ruined.
9. The affidavit in reply further recites that the applicants never attempted to tamper the prosecution witnesses after granting bail. Moreover, it is also stated in the said affidavit in reply, that after filing of charge sheet, all the applicants have expressed their unconditional apology to the respondent no.2 and all the applicants have expressed that whatever incident had happened, it ought not to have happened and again expressed their unconditional apology to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 also states that considering her social and family status and her future, and in view of the unconditional apology expressed by the applicants, the respondent no.2 is desirous to accept the said apology of the applicants. It is also recited in the said affidavit in reply, that if the proceedings of S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 are continued, then it would unnecessarily amount to further complications and respondent no.2 does not wish to enter into any such situation which would ultimately destroy life of respondent no.2.
10. It is further stated in the said affidavit in reply, that all the applicants are ashamed of the incident in question, and unconditional apology tendered by the applicants has been accepted by respondent no.2. It is also stated in the said affidavit in reply, that the respondent no.2 has decided to settle and compromise with the applicants and does not wish to continue the criminal proceedings initiated at her instance against the present applicants. Accordingly, she has stated that the respondent no.2 and applicants have arrived at a compromise as per their own wish and respondent no.2 has decided to withdraw all the allegations made by her against the applicants, considering family and social status of herself. The affidavit in reply further recites that the respondent no.2 has decided to settle the dispute with the applicants keeping in mind her future family as well as social life. It has been further stated that she has no complaint against the applicants henceforth in view of the compromise and settlement between herself and applicants herein.
11. The applicant nos.1 to 7, as well as, respondent no.2 are present today before the court and they admitted that the compromise and settlement has been taken place amongst them, and the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 does not wish to continue with the aforesaid complaint filed by her. Moreover, the respondent no.2 has admitted the contents of the affidavit in reply filed by her and also her signature thereon.
12. Considering the contents of the present application, as well as, considering the contents of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant, it is apparent that after filing charge sheet, the applicants have expressed their unconditional apology to the respondent no.2 and same has been accepted by respondent no.2. It also appears that the compromise / settlement has been taken place between applicant nos.1 to 7 i.e. original accused, and respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant, and in view of the said settlement / compromise, respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings initiated at her instance against the present applicants. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts, as stated in the present application, as well as, affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2, there is no propriety to continue with Crime No. 278/2010, and consequent charge sheet filed under S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011), since continuation of prosecution against the applicants would be futile exercise in view of the settlement / compromise arrived between applicants as well as respondent no.2 herein.
13. Learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Anjusingh Pramodsingh Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 763, relying on the judgment of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana and another, reported at 2003 ALL (10) MR (Cri) 1162, has observed thus :
"21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harayana and another, reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 held as under :-
"Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 - Inherent powers - Quashing of proceedings, F.I.R. or complaint - Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing - Whether to exercise or not such a power would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
Criminal P.C. S. 482 - Powers of Court - Matrimonial offences - It is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. "
In another case of Mansur A. Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1911, this Court held as under :-
"Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989), S.3(1)(x) - Criminal P.C., Ss. 482, 320 - Compounding of offences - Inherent powers of Court - Complaint under S. 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act - Settlement between accused and complainant - Offence though non-compoundable, Court under S.482 of Criminal Procedure Code can permit the parties to compound the non- compoundable offence, when it is satisfied that settlement is bonafide and free from pressure and force. "
In another case of Swati w/o. Pradeep Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1743 this Court held that :-
" Criminal P.C., Ss.482, 320 - Penal Code, Ss. 498-A, 420, 494, 495 and section 506 (B) - Amicable settlement of disputes between the parties - No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings initiated by the wife when she herself is not interested in prosecuting the said proceedings - Criminal Proceedings quashed. "
This Court in the case of Mr. Jitendra S. Bhadoria and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 898 held as under :-
"Criminal P.C., Ss. 320, 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Compounding of offence u/s. 320 - Cruelty to wife - Section 320 of Criminal P.C. does not limit or affect the power of the High Court u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. - Section 320 would not be a bar to exercise a power of quashing. Penal Code (1860), Section 498-A, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.) - relied on."
22. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 584 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 952 (F.B.)] held that the powers under section 482 of the Code are not limited or affected by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. It is further held that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, pending upon the facts of a given case. The powers under section 482 are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including section 320 of the Code. The Court could exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution and in conformity with the precepts indicated in paragraph 7.10 of this judgment. This Court further observed that the powers to compound can be exercised at the trial stage or even at the appellate stage subject to satisfaction of the conditions postulated by the legislature under section 320 of the Code.
The Full Bench in above referred judgment in para 6.13 has observed that the powers of compounding is strictly regulated by statutory powers while the inherent powers of the Court are guided by judicial pronouncements within the scope of section 482 of the Code. Another very important facet of criminal jurisprudence which as developed in the present time is with regard to the impact of compounding and/or quashing criminal proceedings in relation to an offence, its impact on the victim, witnesses and the society at large. This must be treated as a relevant consideration.
In above referred judgment, in para No.5.14 the Full Bench has observed that when the Court has to consider whether the criminal Proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied (i) whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and (ii) whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue."
14. The Hon. Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Arvind Barsaul, etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, reported at 2008 ALL SCR 2111, in para 10 of the judgment, has observed thus :
" We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she does not want to prosecute the appellants. Even otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, in our opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. We, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, deem it proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants emanating from the FIR lodged under section 498-A, IPC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of."
15. In view of the pronouncement by the Full Bench of this Court, relying on the various Supreme Court's Judgments, I have no hesitation to proceed on footings that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code include the powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it.
16. In view of the said position, inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked to meet the ends of justice and Crime No. 278/2010, and consequent charge sheet filed under S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011) deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
17. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C" thereof, and the impugned charge sheet No. 150/2010, dated 1-11-2010, submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, under S.T.C. No. 1412/2010 (R.C.C. No. 431/2011), in respect of Crime No. 278/2010, dated 23-10-2010, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur, for the offences punishable under Section 354, read with Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, against the applicants herein, at the instance of respondent no.2, stands quashed and set aside.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
19. Office to inform the concerned court accordingly.