Quashed

Chetan Chabildas Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Aug 2014APL/246/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the quashing of criminal complaints for cheating and forgery. The parties had amicably settled the dispute, and the complainant had consented to quash the complaint, rendering no useful purpose in continuing the proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No.246 of 2014 and Criminal Application No.871 of 2013 disposed of by quashing the complaint.

Chetan Chabildas Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

23-apl-246-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2014

¶4

WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.871 OF 2013

¶6

Chetan Chabildas Shah...Applicant
vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr....Respondents

¶8

Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, for the Applicant
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM :V.M. KANADE &
 P.D. KODE JJ.

¶10

DATE :AUGUST 20, 2014

¶11

P.C:

¶12

1.We are informed that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves
and as such the applicant is seeking quashing of

¶13

the complaint by consent. In the trial Court

¶14

also, the complainant has filed an application to
that effect. We have perused the said application
filed by the complainant before the Sessions

1/4

Vishal Parekar/bdp

23-apl-246-2014

Court, Mumbai. Complainant is present in the

¶19

Court. He has no objection if the complaint is
quashed.

¶20

2.A complaint was lodged against the Petitioner

¶21

in Criminal Application No.246 of 2014 for the
offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468,
471, 420 read with section 34 I.P.C. In the said
complaint, one Trilochan Anand stated that the
Petitioner had made a false representation that
the property which was to be sold to him was free

¶22

from encumbrances though, in fact, the said
statement was not correct. The matter,
thereafter, was amicably settled and the
Petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs 43 lakhs to

¶23

the complainant without prejudice to his rights
and contentions. By that time, however, the
Petitioner had filed Criminal Application No.871
of 2013. Thereafter, this fact was recorded by

¶24

this Court in its order dated 10/07/2014 passed

2/4

Vishal Parekar/bdp

23-apl-246-2014

in Criminal Application No.246 of 2014. Since
the other matter was not placed alongwith the
said application, direction to that effect was
given to the office to tag Criminal Application
No.871 of 2013.

¶29

3.The Complainant had given an undertaking to
the Sessions Court that upon receiving the said
amount, he shall give his consent for quashing
the complaint filed by him against the Petitioner.

¶30

4. In our view, since the dispute between the

¶31

parties is essentially a private dispute and now
parties have amicably settled the dispute, no
useful purpose will be served in continuing the
said complaint. Both the applications which are
filed for quashing of the criminal complaint can
be disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) in
both the applications. Applications accordingly
disposed of.

3/4

Vishal Parekar/bdp

23-apl-246-2014

5. It is clarified that both the parties

¶36

have stated that now they have no claims against

¶37

each other.

¶38

4/4

¶39

Vishal Parekar/bdp

Chetan Chabildas Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Chabildas Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Shankarrao Ghugare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Johny Lonapan Kallikadan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Kacher Vaity Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Dagadu Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyanarayan Nandkishor Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Gavali Vs Chandrakant Ghodke and Ors.