Quashed

Jaya Sidram Kokane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016WP/1545/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench of the Bombay High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR involving sections 406, 420, 467, etc., IPC. The petitioners, tenants, and the first informant, the landlord, had settled the dispute via consent terms in a prior writ petition, leading to this quashing under Gian Singh precedent.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. MECR No.1 of 2012 dated 12.5.2012 registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Greater Mumbai was quashed and set aside.

Jaya Sidram Kokane and Anr. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

crwp1545

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.1545 OF 2013

¶5

Mrs.Jaya Sidram Kokane & Anr....Petitioners
vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ram Mani Upadhyay a/w Mr.Shafi Shaikh i/b
Mr.R.V.Bansode for the Petitioners
Ms M.H.Mhatre, APP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.O.D.Goswami for respondent No.3

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2016

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned counsel for the third respondent and the
learned APP for first and second respondents. Rule.
The respondents waive service. Forthwith taken up
for final disposal.

¶11

2The second respondent is the first informant.
The prayer in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is for quashing the FIR
registered for the offence under sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471, 452 449 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The first information report was
registered on the basis of the order of the learned
Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 156 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short
`CrPC'). The allegation in the FIR is that a room

¶12

2 crwp1545

¶13

owned by the second respondent was granted on
tenancy basis to one Shashikant Konkane and Jaya
Konkane who in turn ensured that the room is
transferred to the name of the second petitioner.

¶14

3It appears that there was a proceeding filed
before the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act for the purpose of eviction. A
writ petition was filed by the said Jaya Konkane and
the petitioners herein being Writ Petition No.9341
of 2016 to which the first informant was the first
respondent. In the said writ petition, consent
terms were filed by the parties to the petition. In
clause (6) of the consent terms, the first informant
recorded her consent for quashing the criminal
proceedings subject matter of the present petition
as a result of the settlement of the dispute in
relation to the room in question. On the basis of
the consent terms, by order dated 31st August 2016,
the aforesaid petition has been disposed of in terms
of the consent terms by the learned Single Judge of
this Court.

¶15

4The dispute as reflected from the first
information report is essentially a civil dispute.
Now in view of the complete settlement of the
dispute in respect of the room in question,
continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve
any purpose. The chances of conviction are very
bleak. Therefore, in the light of the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh versus

¶16

3 crwp1545

¶17

State of Punjab and another1,this is a fit case to
exercise power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C to
quash the proceedings.

¶18

5Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶19

(I)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:

¶20

“(a)That this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
certiorari or writ in the like nature,
thereby quash and set aside the impugned
FIR bearing No.MECR No.1 of 2012 dated
12.5.2012 registered at Nirmal Nagar
PoliceStation,GreaterMumbai
u/sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 452,
449 read section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.”

¶21

(II) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.

¶22

1 (2012) 10 SCC page 303

Jaya Sidram Kokane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Sidram Kokane and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Bhargav Dilip Dholi Vs Dilip Premjibhai Dholi and 16 Ors.

Bengal Club Vs Wecom Trust and 5 Ors. and Ramakant v Biradar (Contemnor)

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Bengal Club (Applicant)

Anil Sardana and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Manoj Ramkrishana Dhale Vs Abhimanyu Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Hiraman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra