Allowed

Mr. Amit Kumar Ganpat Shirodkar and 4 Ors., v. State of Goa, through Police Inspector and Anr.

Bombay HC5 May 2014WPCR/41/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged by a father against his sons and relatives. The court ruled that since the dispute was family-based and settled, the proceedings should be quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.242/2013 and all subsequent proceedings initiated thereafter were quashed and set aside.

Mr. Amit Kumar Ganpat Shirodkar and 4 Ors., Vs State of Goa… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wpcr41-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 41/2014

¶4

Amit Kumar Ganpat Shirodkar, son of Ganpat Shirodkar, 38 years of age, service, r/o. Bungalow No.7, Phase II, Friends Colony Khadpaband, Ponda, Goa.

¶5

Mrs. Vidhyadevi Somnath Divgikar, 58 years of age, service, residing at GMC Complex, Type 4, Block A, No.1, Bambolim, Goa.

¶6

Mrs. Shubhada Prakash Naik, 48 years of age, residing at Mandora Niwas, Nehru Nagar, Pimpri, Pune, presently staying at GMC, Type 4, Block A No.1, Bambolim.

¶7

Mr. Nandakumar alias Krishna Kalangutkar, 45 years of age, residing near Kamakshi Temple, Thal, Shiroda.

¶8

Mr,. Bala alias Megharaj Somnath Kalangutkar, 57 years of age, residing near Kamakshi Temple, Thal, Shiroda, Goa.

¶9

….. Petitioners.

¶10

V E R S US

¶11

State of Goa, through Police Inspector, Ponda Police Station, Ponda, Goa. (through AG's Office)

¶12

Mr. Ganpat Narayan Shirodkar, son of late Narayan Shirodkar, aged 74 years, r/o. Bungalow NO.7, Phase – II, Friends Colony, Khadpaband, Ponda, Goa

¶13

…... Respondents.

¶14

2 wpcr41-14

¶15

Mr. Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶16

Ms. Melina Gomes e Pinto, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

¶17

Mr. Anthony D'Silva, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶18

CORAM :- F.M. REIS & Z.A. HAQ, JJ. Date : - 5^th May, 2014.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER F.M. REIS, J.)

¶20

Shri Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶21

seeks leave to amend, to incorporate FIR No.242/2013. Leave granted. The amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶22

Heard Shri Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. M. Gomes, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Anthony D'Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶23

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶24

The petitioners have sought in the above writ petition,

¶25

3 wpcr41-14

¶26

inter alia, the following relief :

¶27

“a) Records and proceedings of the impugned FIR, i.e. FIR no.00/2013 and now re-registered under FIR No.242/2013 lodged at the Ponda Police be called for and after perusing the same the impugned FIR no.00/2013 and now re-registered under FIR No.242/2013 and all the actions taken by Respondents and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside.”

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was employed on the ship and on account of his employment he used to reside in Goa for six months and the remaining six months he was on the ship. The petitioner No.1 is the only son of the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1's mother expired on 12^th August, 2013 and whenever, the petitioner No.1 went on board the ship, the respondent No.2 at his own wish, was admitted to an old age home. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 31^st August, 2013, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at the Mapusa Police Station against the petitioners alleging various offences. The said complaint was registered under FIR No.00/2013, and upon registration, it was transferred to the Ponda Police Station. The respondent No.2, thereafter, filed an affidavit

¶29

4 wpcr41-14

¶30

before the Ponda Police Station, inter alia , giving an undertaking to withdraw the said complaint against the petitioners, as the same was lodged by the respondent No.2 on account of some clear misunderstanding. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 17^th January, 2014, the petitioner No.1 was arrested and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner No.2 also filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was thereafter granted. The above writ petition has, accordingly, been filed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned FIR No.242/2013 registered at the Ponda Police Station.

¶31

It is to be noted that the dispute appears to be between the father and the family. A joint application, duly signed by the petitioners and their Advocate, along with the respondent No.2 and the Advocate for respondent No.2 came to be filed. In the said application, inter alia, it is prayed that the FIR No.00/2013, now re-registered as FIR No. 242/2013 lodged by the respondent No.2 at the Ponda Police Station, on 31^st August, 2013 and all proceedings thereof be quashed and set aside as the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶32

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent No.2 submit that the parties have settled their dispute and

¶33

5 wpcr41-14

¶34

the FIR No. 242/2013 and all incidental proceedings be quashed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not yet completed and she has no objection if the application is allowed.

¶35

In our view, considering that the dispute is a family dispute, and the offences alleged by the respondent No.2 come within the parameters of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian

¶36

Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr, reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012, specially para 57 thereof, which would squarely be applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in our view, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

In view of the above, the joint application made by the petitioners and the respondent No.2 is allowed. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Consequently, the FIR no.00/2013 and now bearing No.242/2013 lodged by the respondent No.2 at the Ponda Police Station on 31^st August, 2013 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are quashed and set aside.

¶38

6 wpcr41-14

¶39

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Z.A. HAQ, J. F.M. REIS, J.

¶41

ssm.

Mr. Amit Kumar Ganpat Shirodkar and 4 Ors., v. State of Goa, through Police Inspector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Amit Kumar Ganpat Shirodkar and 4 Ors., v. State of Goa, through Police Inspector 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jsw Steel Ltd. Vs Union of India through the Secretry and 2 Ors.

Smt. Jayashri N. Rajebhosale @ Bimabai Raujirane Thr. Her Attorney Bhupendrasinh N. Rajebhosale Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

M/S Pisces Exim ( India ) Private Limited Vs M/S Sjj Marine Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by Mr. Anil Shamrao Jadhav

Smt. Vasanti G. Naroji Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Smt. Vasanti G. Naroji Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Mr. Anil Shetgaonkar the Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Shri Yasin Tajdin Mavany