Allowed

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2015WP/3337/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed an FIR for cheating under Section 420 IPC after the parties settled their dispute amicably. The court invoked Section 482 CrPC and Narinder Singh to hold that keeping proceedings pending served no purpose. Costs of Rs. 5000 were imposed.

What did the court decide?

FIR C.R.No.192/2015 quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000 or donation of books worth Rs. 5000 to Kirtikar Law Library within four weeks.

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sr.No. 916

¶2

WP 3337.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3337 OF 2015

¶4

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar ..Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Dr. Smt. Shalima Gautam ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. J. S. Kini i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

¶6

Mr. S. B. Chandan, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2015.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

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

¶11

The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside the FIR bearing C.R.No.192 of 2015 registered with Rabodi Police Station, Thane, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably, and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside the

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

Sr.No. 916

WP 3337.15

subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, she has stated that she has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of demand draft, a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit. In that view of the matter, she has stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that she has no objection if the subject FIR is quashed and set-aside.

¶17

Mrs. Kejriwal, learned APP having taken instructions from the officer concerned viz. Mr. N. R. Mahadik, API, Rabodi Police Station, Thane, stated that the statement of respondent No.2 is recorded. She placed on record, a copy of the said statement. The statement reveals that respondent No.2 has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and she, therefore, has no grievance against the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that the petition may be allowed as the dispute between the parties is settled amicably.

¶19

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 that view of the matter, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court 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 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.

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

Sr.No. 916

WP 3337.15

Accordingly, the subject FIR bearing C.R.No.192 of 2015 registered with Rabodi Police Station, Thane, is quashed and set-aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-, or in the alternative, donating books worth Rs.5000/- to the “Kirtikar Law Library” by the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce the receipt in respect of the costs/donation thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the criminal writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶24

Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

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

¶26

3/3

¶27

Shubhada S Kadam

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar 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

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akbar Hussain Shafi Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Madhukar Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.