Allowed

Prasad Shriram Dhupkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2015WP/3331/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash FIR and criminal proceedings arising from sections 323, 324, 504 IPC. Petitioners and respondent settled disputes amicably. Court allowed petition to quash proceedings upon condition of cost payment.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No.1856/PW/2014 and F.I.R. No.60/2014 quashed and set aside; petitioners to pay Rs. 5,000/- to Kirtikar Law Library.

Prasad Shriram Dhupkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

908-WP-3331-15.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3331 OF 2015

¶4

Shri Prasad Shriram Dhupkar & Ors. Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

..Petitioners.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. R.V.Pawar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the State. Mr. M.V.Sawant, advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. Date : 2^nd September, 2015 .

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1856/PW/2014 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52^nd Court at Mulund, Bombay arising out of C.R.No.60/2014 registered with Kanjur Marg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the instance of respondent no.2 against the petitioners by consent.

1/3

Shivgan

908-WP-3331-15.doc

2 Pending trial, parties have settled their disputes amicably and have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case. Respondent no.2 has filed affidavit affirmed on 2.9.2015. By making averment in paragraph 5 of it, he has requested this Court to quash the subject F.I.R. and the consequential criminal case for strengthening and maintaining the goods relations amongst them. Respondent No.2 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 FIR and consequential criminal proceedings are quashed and set-aside. He also stated that he is giving no objection for quashing the subject FIR out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶16

3 In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex 1 we are Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab

¶17

of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the subject F.I.R. and the consequential criminal proceedings.

¶18

1[2014 AIR SCW 2065]

¶19

Shivgan 2/3

¶20

908-WP-3331-15.doc

¶21

4 Accordingly, criminal writ petition is allowed in terms

¶22

of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to saddle the petitioners with the cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid to the “ Kirtikar Law Library ”.

¶23

5 For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and the order quashing the subject FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings shall be treated as non-est.

¶24

[R.G.KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶25

Shivgan 3/3

Prasad Shriram Dhupkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Shriram Dhupkar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Singh Singh Malhotra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajit Hariram Lakhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanghvi Nagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Ratilal Kansara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lavina Serrao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Jaybharat Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.