The court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings on grounds of amicable settlement and a subsequent affidavit by the complainant stating the complaint arose from misunderstanding.
The FIR and C.R.No.2 of 2002 and C.C. No.605/P of 2003 as far as it relates to the petitioner alone stands quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.41 OF 2005
Ankit Rajendra Agarwal .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Shri Shirish Gupte Sr.Advocate i/b Mehta & Girdharlal
for petitioner.
Shri D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for State
Shri Rajender Singh for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &
P.V.KAKADE, JJ.
DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2005.
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. By the present petition the petitioner seeks to
quash the FIR and C.R. No.2 of 2002 and Criminal case
No.605/P of 2003 pending before the 15th Court of
Learned Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai on the ground that
the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the
: 2 :
complainant has no more grievance against the
Petitioner. The respondent No.2 who had lodged the
complaint-FIR has filed the affidavit confirming the
fact that the compliant was filed on account of
misunderstanding of the complainant and he has no
grievance against the Petitioner-accused and therefore,
he has no objection for quashing of the FIR and
proceedings under the said Criminal case. The learned
advocate appearing for Respondent no.2 has also
confirmed that respondent no.2 is no more interested in
proceeding against the said accused.
3. We have also confirmed from the learned APP that
apart from the present case there is no other case
pending against the petitioner. Such a verification was
found necessary in view of the allegations in the
original complaint by the respondent no.2. The learned
APP also confirmed that earlier there was one more
complaint filed against the petitioner. However, on
investigation it was revealed that there is no substance
and ‘B’-summary was ordered.
4. In view of that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and more particularly that the
: 3 :
complainant has filed the affidavit stating that the
original complaint against the petitioner was filed
under misunderstanding, we do not find any justification
for proceeding with the matter against the petitioner
and the case being made for quashing the FIR against him
as also subsequent criminal proceedings against him, the
petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), as
far as it relates to the petitioner alone. The FIR and
C.R.No.2 of 2002 and C.C. No.605/P of 2003 on the file
of 15th Court of the Learned Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai
as far as it relates to the petitioner alone stands
quashed. The Petition stands disposed of with no order
as to costs. This order shall not affect in any manner
the proceedings against the other accused in the said
FIR or the Criminal Case.
(R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)
(P.V.Kakade,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings should be quashed given the amicable settlement and the complainant's filing of an affidavit stating the complaint was filed due to misunderstanding
Whether the petition can be allowed in terms of the prayer clause relating to the petitioner alone without affecting proceedings against other accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ankit Rajendra Agarwal
State of Maharashtra
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
P.V.KAKADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court