The Bombay High Court reduced to quash an FIR registered under Section 156(3) CrPC after the complainant withdrew allegations and conceded the matter was settled civil dispute.
FIR registered on 20.10.2011 quashed; respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to State within four weeks.
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.
Ladda
wp-877-12
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.877 of 2012.
Ramesh Bhauchand Shah and Anr .. petitioners.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents.
Mr H.S. Venegavkar for the petitioners Mr P.R.Rathod, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mrs A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ.
DATED : 13th AUGUST, 2012.
P.C. :-
the basis of directions given by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent No.2 had filed private
1 of 4
wp-877-12
complaint before the Magistrate complaining about the incident which had taken place as back as in between 1991 to 2000. However, the private complaint was filed in the year 2011. The tenor of the private complaint clearly indicates that the same has been filed in relation to the dispute arising out of commercial deals between the parties and on account of non-payment of the outstanding claim of the complainant. The fact as to why the complainant kept quiet for a period of almost ten years is explained only in the penultimate paragraph of the FIR. He has mentioned that since the petitioners had paid the amount in part between 2000 to 2009, but as they failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.3,15,000/-, he decided to file the complaint.
2 of 4
wp-877-12
balance amount which was outstanding since the year 2000. We are conscious of the fact that the allegations in the FIR neither can be ignored nor the FIR can be quashed on the basis of assumption. However, now, the complainant has joined the petitioners and has filed consent terms before this Court, not only withdrawing the allegations but accepting that there was no dispute between the parties and all differences have been settled amicably. The complainant is personally present before us and concedes this position. This presupposes that respondent No.2, now, concedes that allegations made by him in the FIR were figment of imagination, only with a view to persecute the petitioners with criminal action so as to compel the petitioners to pay the outstanding dues which had become time barred.
3 of 4
wp-877-12
(A.R.JOSHI,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
Ladda
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR registered on the basis of a private complaint can be quashed when the complainant has settled the dispute and withdrawn allegations.
Whether a criminal complaint filed to coerce payment of a time-barred civil debt constitutes a case suitable for quashing under Section 156(3) CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Bhauchand Shah and Anr
The State of Maharashtra & Anr
A.M. Khanwilkar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
