Allowed

Ramchandra J. Vaishnav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2015WP/3555/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a joint petition under Art 226/482 CrPC to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery pending investigation. The court found the dispute settled amicably between the complainant and two accused but not against a third. Petitioners were ordered to pay costs to a hospital.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR against Petitioners 1 and 2 subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000 to Tata Memorial Hospital within two weeks.

Ramchandra J. Vaishnav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

919-WP-3555-2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3555 OF 2015

¶4

1 Mr. Ramchandra J. Vaishnav 2 Mr. A.S.Pisolkar 3 Mr. Yusuf A. Shaikh ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Jitendra Ranawat with Mr. D.S.Jain, advocates for petitioners. Mrs. S.V.Sonavane, APP for the State.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. Date : 16^th September, 2015 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶9

parties.

¶10

2 This joint petition is filed by accused nos.1 and 2 and the complainant under Article 227 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 F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.I167 of 2014 registered with Mira Road Police Station at the instance of petitioner no.3 against petitioner nos.1, 2 and one Mr. V.V.Dehkar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,

¶11

Shivgan 1/5

¶12

919-WP-3555-2015.doc

¶13

468, 469, 471, 474, 178, 179, 181 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

3 Pending investigation, the parties to the petition settled their dispute amicably and, in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, filed the instant petition for quashing the proceedings of the subject FIR by consent. Petitioner No.3-Original Complainant has filed an affidavit dated 31^st August, 2015. In paragraph 8 of this affidavit, he has stated that the dispute between himself and the petitioner nos.1 and 2 has been amicably resolved. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, he has stated that he is giving the said affidavit for quashing the subject F.I.R. qua petitioner nos.1 and 2 only without any undue influence, coercion or pressure on him and on his own free will. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are personally present in this Court. On specific query, petitioner no.3 (Original Complainant) stated that he has gone through the affidavit and has fully understood the contents thereof and has no objection, if the subject FIR is quashed and set-aside qua petitioner nos.1 and 2 only. 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.

¶15

Shivgan 2/5

¶16

919-WP-3555-2015.doc

¶17

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 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.

¶18

4 Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by petitioner nos.1 and 2 only to the “Tata Memorial Hospital” an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the criminal writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically

3/5

Shivgan

919-WP-3555-2015.doc

without further reference to the Court.

¶23

5 It is made clear that we have not quashed the subject F.I.R. as against Mr. V.V.Dehkar who is accused no.3. Investigation into the subject F.I.R. as against Mr. V.V.Dehkar shall be continued.

¶24

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

¶25

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

4/5

Shivgan

919-WP-3555-2015.doc

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed judgment/order.

¶31

5/5

¶32

Shivgan

Ramchandra J. Vaishnav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra J. Vaishnav 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

Ratansinh Parvatsinh Devada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Shah @ Raja Chandrashekhar Khara @ Raja Vs Director General of Police and Ors.

Arun Laxman More Vs Addl. Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Ors.

Ashok Krishna Maskar Vs Amrm Exaj Khan and Anr.

Mazhar Rehmat Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.