Allowed

Capt. Pheroze Dinshaw Dastur v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2016WP/4081/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal writ petition quashing a criminal complaint for offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC. Based on the mutual settlement of the civil nature dispute by the petitioner and complainant, the court held there were no impediments to quashing the complaint under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition is allowed; the criminal complaint is quashed; the matter is disposed of.

Capt. Pheroze Dinshaw Dastur Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

WP 4081 of 2016

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 4081 OF 2016

¶5

Capt. Pheroze Dinshaw Dastur ….Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Haresh Jagtiani a/w. Mr. Siddhesh Bhole a/w. Royden Fernandes a/w. Nikhil Ghate i/b. Harish Jagtiani & Associates for the Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste-APP for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.A. Bohre for Respondent No.2

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶11

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,

¶15

the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State.

¶16

The present petition is filed for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 504 and 506 (Part I and II) of the Indian Penal Code vide CC No. 844/PW/2003 before the A.C.M.M.'s Court, Esplande.

¶17

Both the parties have now filed the consent terms and they are

¶18

present in the Court. Respondent No.2 – Original Complainant, who is present in the Court has stated that he has no objection if the complaint

¶19

2/2

¶20

WP 4081 of 2016

¶21

is quashed since the dispute has now been amicably settled. We have asked the Complainant whether he has any objection for quashing the complaint and he has answered in negative. We are satisfied that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and as such, we are of the view that there is no impediment in quashing the complaint in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that if the dispute is of a personal /civil nature, then such a dispute can be quashed by the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 will squarely apply to the facts of this case.

¶22

We are of the view that once the parties have mutually settled the dispute, there is no impediment in quashing the complaint by consent. Hence, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and is disposed of.

¶23

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶24

Vaishali Tikam

Capt. Pheroze Dinshaw Dastur v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Capt. Pheroze Dinshaw Dastur 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

Saeed Sagir Shaikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhruv S/O Rajesh Sood Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rammilan Harishankar Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohini Dileep Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shantai Resort Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Namdev Sonavane Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.