Allowed

Atul Ratanchand Jhaveri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014WP/59/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings after finding that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled with the complainant receiving compensation. The application was disposed of without further ado.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; FIR No.18 of 2013 and Cr. Case No.444/PW/2013 were quashed and set aside.

Atul Ratanchand Jhaveri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

suresh 30-WP-59.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2014

¶3

`Atul Ratanchand Jhaveri`
`& Ors.`	`.... Petitioners`
`Vs.`
`The State of Maharashtra`
`& Anr.`	`.... Respondents`

¶4

Mr. Ayaz Khan for the Petitioners.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the State.

¶5

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

¶6

DATED: AUGUST 05, 2014

¶7

P.C:

¶8

1.It appears that the parties have

¶9

amicably settled the dispute before the
Mediator appointed by the Fast-Track Court.

¶10

Copy of the mediation report is annexed at

¶11

Exhibit-C to the petition. In para 4 thereof,

¶12

it is mentioned that the applicants, i.e., the

¶13

petitioners herein should approach this Court

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

suresh 30-WP-59.2014

¶16

for quashing of the FIR. It is stated in the
mediation report that the complainant has
accepted Pay Order of Rs.4.25 lakhs, dated
18-3-2013, drawn of Bank of Maharashtra. It
appears that after receiving the amount, the
complainant has stopped appearing before the
Mediator, which fact has been mentioned in the
order passed by the Sessions Court which
granted temporary anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.

¶17

2.In our view, taking into consideration

¶18

the order passed by the Mediator, it is obvious
that the parties have amicably settled the
dispute and the complainant-respondent No.2 now
is not appearing before the Court after
receiving the amount which was due and payable
to her. The petition accordingly is, therefore,
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.18

Page 2 of 3

suresh

30-WP-59.2014

of 2013, namely Criminal Case No.444/PW/2013
and pending in the Court of learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaum,
Mumbai are quashed and set aside. The
application is disposed of.

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Atul Ratanchand Jhaveri and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Ratanchand Jhaveri and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallappa Basappa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swagat Kala Krida and Sansrutik Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Genbhau Kondiba Kale Vs Dr. Vikas Deshmukh, Collector and Ors.

Panjabrao Mahadeo Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shyamsunder Radheshyam Agarwal Vs Mohammed Hanif Baghban and Ors.