Allowed

Ashish Madhukar Lade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016WP/3506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint filed under sections 323, 324, 504, and 34 IPC. Finding the dispute personal and amicably settled, the Court quashed the complaint by consent. The petitioner was directed to donate Rs. 10,000 to a cancer society.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint registered under CR No.82 of 2016 at Worli Police Station quashed. Petitioner directed to donate Rs. 10,000 to Tata Cancer Society.

Ashish Madhukar Lade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

WP/3506/2016

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3506 OF 2016

Ashish Madhukar Lade

….. Petitioner.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶10

….. Respondents.

¶11

Mr. S.G. Rajput for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. S.B. Gothwal i/b Sarang Pathak for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM: V. M. KANADE &

¶13

MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE: 17^th November, 2016

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf the Respondents.

¶16

This Petition is filed by the Petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered with Worli Police Station vide CR No.82 of 2016.

¶17

Parties have amicably settled the dispute. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that on account of misunderstanding there was dispute between the parties. He has stated that the

¶18

2/2

¶19

WP/3506/2016

¶20

Petitioner is his childhood friend and they have now resolved the dispute.

¶21

In our view, there is no impediment in quashing the said criminal complaint by consent. Moreover, dispute between the parties is personal one and therefore ratio of the judgment in Gyan Singh vs. State of Pubjab and Another¹ will clearly apply to the facts of the present case. Respondent No.2 is present in Court. We have asked him whether he has any objection if the complaint is quashed and he has answered in the negative.

¶22

Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed of.

¶23

Petitioner, however, shall donate an amount of Rs 10,000/- to the Tata Cancer Society. Petitioner shall file an affidavit annexing the receipt of payment of the said amount to the Tata Cancer Society within four weeks.

¶24

(MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶25

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

Ashish Madhukar Lade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Madhukar Lade 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

Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust and Anr. Vs Sandeep Saradchandra Thakur and Ors.

Sandeep Shradchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bharat v. Khater and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shashikant Jijaba Yelwande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Monika Christina John and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.