Allowed

Siddharth Deepak Dadlani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2010APPLN/2787/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for quashing a criminal complaint lodged between close relatives who had settled the dispute amicably. Citing Jagdish Chanana, the court held that the personal nature of the dispute and the complainant's reluctance to proceed justified quashing the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and criminal case arising out of the said complaint registered with Khar Police Station and pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, were quashed and set aside.

Siddharth Deepak Dadlani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2787 OF 2010

¶5

Siddharth Deepak Dadlani...Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr....Respondents

¶6

Mr.C.K.Talekar i/b. L.J.Law for Applicant
Mr.Parvez Memon i/b. MZM Legal for Respondent No.2
Mr. A.S. Shitole-APP for State

¶7

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.2.

¶10

2.This is an application for quashing a complaint
filed by the Respondent No.2 vide C.R. No. 140 of 2009
registered with the Khar Police Station for the
offence punishable under sections 465, 471, 406, 420,
341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3.The Respondent No.2 has filed his affidavit in
reply stating therein that he has no objection if
the said complaint is quashed since they have amicably

¶12

¶13

settled the dispute. The parties are close relatives.
The Complainant is the maternal uncle of the
Respondent No.2 and he is permanently residing at
United States. The Respondent No.2 is present in
the Court and he reiterates what is stated by him in
the affidavit and has stated that he has no objection
for quashing of the complaint. In my view, there is
no impediment in quashing the complaint under section
482 of the Cr.P.C. since the dispute between them is a
personal dispute and is not arising out of any
commercial transaction. The Apex Court in the case of
Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
reported in 2008 AIR (SC) 1968 and also held that no
useful purpose will be served if the complaint is kept
pending, particularly when the Complainant does not
wish to pursue the complaint.

¶14

4. As a result, the application is allowed. The FIR
which is registered with the Khar Police Station vide
CR. No. 140 of 2009 and criminal case arising out of
the said complaint being CC No. 1519 of 2009 pending
in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court at
Bandra is quashed and set aside.

¶15

5.Application is disposed of.

¶16

(V.M. KANADE J.)

Siddharth Deepak Dadlani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Deepak Dadlani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Jalinder Dawari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhubai @ Muli Nannji Jogdiya and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Pandurang Nigudkar Vs Dnyandeep Co-Operative Credit Society Limited and Anr.

Parveshkumar Chunavashankar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Gulam Hussein Mohd. Meghu Shaikh @ Nana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra