Allowed

Vijay Patel v. Samir H. Doshi

Bombay HC25 Aug 2015WP/2424/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a First Information Report registered for offences under various sections of the IPC upon showing that the dispute between parties was amicably settled. The Court held that no purpose would be served by keeping criminal proceedings pending for personal disputes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital.

Vijay Patel Vs Samir H. Doshi — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sr.No.915

¶2

WP 2424.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2014

¶4

Mr. Vijay Patel Versus 1. Mr. Samir H. Doshi 2. The State of Maharashtra 3. Mr. Alpesh Khara 4. Mr. Kamlesh Patel 5. Mr. Shashikumar Pandey

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Hussien Bengali along with Agasti Vibhute i/b. M/s. Jayakar and Partners, advocates for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Sonali Aggarwal i/b. Junnarkar and Associates, advocate for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶10

Mr. Kaushal Parsekar i/b. Jay Legal Consultants, advocates for respondent No.3.

¶11

Coram : RANJIT MORE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶12

Date : 25^th AUGUST, 2015.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

¶15

The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside the FIR bearing MECR No.3 of 2010 registered with D.B. Marg Police

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

Sr.No.915

WP 2424.14

Station, Mumbai, at the instance of respondent No.1, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 474, 477(A), 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said MECR is registered against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

¶20

Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably and in pursuance on an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing the subject MECR by consent. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 24^th August, 2015. In paragraph, 2 he has given no objection for quashing the subject MECR against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that he has gone through the affidavit and has fully understood the contents thereof and has no objection, if the subject MECR is quashed and set-aside. He also stated that he is giving no objection for quashing the said MECR out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶21

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

Sr.No.915

WP 2424.14

overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶26

Accordingly, the the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00, 000/- by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Mumbai for the use of its philanthropic purposes. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶27

Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

[V. L. ACHLIYA, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶29

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Vijay Patel v. Samir H. Doshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Patel v. Samir H. Doshi

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

Ramdas @ Pintya Dattu Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul Dattu Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Uday Shivrm Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Rupeshree Tukaram Rahatwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Madanlal Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nidhi Moolbehari Saxena Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.